Skip to main content
Glama

mcp-knowledge

by io.github.getgapup

competitor_recommendations

Read-only

Recommandations concurrentielles — Gapup agent-payable C-suite expertise (CMO). Returns a structured, audited deliverable. Answers: Given my competitors, what strategic actions should I take and in what order? · What should my 7/30/90/180-day competitive response plan look like? Reference case: Notion — actions face à ClickUp, Asana, Coda. Inputs are validated server-side — send the documented case fields.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
asyncNoIf true, returns a job_id immediately (<200ms) instead of waiting for the result. Poll the result with job_result(job_id). Use for slow tools to avoid client timeouts.
focusNo
competitorsYes
selfCompanyYes

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it 'Returns a structured, audited deliverable' and mentions server-side validation, providing some additional context about behavior. No contradictions with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is five sentences with mixed French and English. It is relatively concise but includes redundant phrasing (e.g., 'Gapup agent-payable C-suite expertise (CMO)') that may confuse. The structure front-loads purpose effectively.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (nested objects, multiple parameters, no output schema), the description covers purpose, key questions, and a reference case but lacks details on the 'focus' parameter, expected output format, and how the deliverable is structured. For a tool with many siblings, more specificity would improve completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 25% (only async parameter described). The description does not elaborate on the other parameters (focus, competitors, selfCompany) beyond their names. 'focus' is particularly vague, and no guidance on formatting or constraints is given.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool provides competitive recommendations and a structured response plan for 7/30/90/180 days, distinguishing it from sibling tools like competitor_intel or competitor_profiles that focus on information gathering. The verb 'recommendations' and resource 'competitive actions' are specific.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for strategic planning ('what strategic actions should I take?') but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or specify when not to use it. No exclusion criteria or alternative tool references are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All mcp-knowledge toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, especially in competitive intelligence, ESG, and risk assessment. For example, there are multiple tools for competitor analysis (competitive_deep_dive, competitor_intel, competitor_moves, etc.) with unclear boundaries. Agents would struggle to select the correct tool without deep understanding of subtle differences.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names are a mix of English and French, and follow no consistent pattern. Some use snake_case (e.g., abm_architect, action_plan_esg), while others are verb-focused (e.g., content_catalog, fx_rate). The lack of a uniform naming convention makes it hard for agents to predict tool names.

Tool Count1/5

With 271 tools, the server is excessively large. Even for a broad knowledge domain, this number of tools makes discovery and selection inefficient. Typical coherent servers have 3-15 tools; this has an order of magnitude more, indicating poor scoping.

Completeness3/5

The tool set covers many domains (compliance, finance, marketing, HR, etc.), but the coverage is uneven due to redundancy. Key areas have multiple overlapping tools, while some sub-domains may still have gaps. Overall, the surface is broad but not well-curated.

Resources