LeanrIQ

list competitors

list_competitors

Read-onlyIdempotent

list competitors. Classification: read-only. Execution: synchronous. Task support: forbidden. The returned JSON is internal application state for LeanrIQ and ChatGPT orchestration. Use assistantSummary first when responding to the user. Never display raw JSON, data, or meta unless the user explicitly asks for raw JSON. Mention IDs only when useful for follow-up or debugging. Prefer concise, human language, highlight the most useful insight, and suggest the next best LeanrIQ action.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`cursor`	No
`seatId`	No
`status`	No
`seatName`	No
`accountId`	No
`campaignId`	No
`creativeId`	No
`advertiserId`	No
`sourceLocale`	No
`targetMarket`	No
`contentLocale`	No
`marketContext`	No
`targetMarkets`	No
`contentLocales`	No
`defaultContentLocale`	No
`marketLanguageProfile`	No
`resolvedContentLocale`	No
`languageVariantGroupId`	No
`requestedOutputLocales`	No
`supportedContentLocales`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes
`meta`	Yes
`error`	No
`status`	Yes
`assistantSummary`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed12 schema fields changedOct 13, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / contentLocale
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

addedInput schema / properties / contentLocales

Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "maxItems": 20,
+  "type": "array"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / defaultContentLocale
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

addedInput schema / properties / languageVariantGroupId

Added value: +{
+  "maxLength": 160,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / marketContext

Added value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "currency": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "targetMarket": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "targetMarkets": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "timeZone": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / marketLanguageProfile

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "propertyNames": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / requestedOutputLocales

Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "maxItems": 20,
+  "type": "array"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / resolvedContentLocale
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
addedInput schema / properties / sourceLocale
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

addedInput schema / properties / supportedContentLocales

Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "maxItems": 20,
+  "type": "array"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / targetMarket

Added value: +{
+  "maxLength": 160,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / targetMarkets

Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "maxLength": 160,
+    "minLength": 1,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "maxItems": 50,
+  "type": "array"
+}

First observedAug 12, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description reinforces this with 'Classification: read-only' and adds non-redundant traits like 'Execution: synchronous' and 'Task support: forbidden'. It also discloses genuinely useful output-handling behavior (use assistantSummary first, never surface raw JSON, mention IDs only for follow-up), which the annotations do not provide.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the prose is tight, but a large share of the text is generic orchestration/output-formatting policy that reads like shared boilerplate rather than tool-specific content, so several sentences do not earn their place in this particular definition.

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

Completeness2/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a 21-parameter tool sitting among several competitor-related siblings, the description supplies no filtering guidance and no routing guidance, leaving the core invocation decisions undocumented for a high-complexity tool.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The schema has 21 parameters with 0% description coverage and no enums, so the description carries the full burden of explaining filtering semantics. It says nothing about any parameter - not the seat/campaign/creative/advertiser IDs that appear to scope the listing, nor the pagination pair (limit/cursor), nor the locale/market fields - leaving the agent to guess how to narrow results.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description opens with 'list competitors', a clear verb+resource, but it is essentially a restatement of the tool name/title and gives no scope (which competitors, filtered by what) or differentiation from nearby siblings such as list_competitor_evidence, get_competitor_intelligence, and run_competitor_intelligence. The agent can tell it is a listing tool, but nothing about what the listing covers.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says when to call list_competitors versus list_competitor_evidence or run_competitor_intelligence. The only imperatives ('use assistantSummary first', 'suggest the next best LeanrIQ action') concern how to present results, not when this tool is the right choice.

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

All LeanrIQ tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?