LeanrIQ

Run canonical LeanrIQ Competitor Intelligence V2 for one advertiser-scoped competitor. Defaults match Studio: 90-day DISPLAY evidence and no mixed social/video banner inference. Without forceRefresh, an existing canonical result is reused when available.

run_competitor_intelligence

Idempotent

Run canonical LeanrIQ Competitor Intelligence V2 for one advertiser-scoped competitor. Defaults match Studio: 90-day DISPLAY evidence and no mixed social/video banner inference. Without forceRefresh, an existing canonical result is reused when available.. Classification: creates billable AI usage. Execution: synchronous. Task support: forbidden. Mutation modes: validate_only, preview_only, execute. Partial failure policy: completed_items_not_rolled_back. 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. If idempotencyKey is omitted on a mutation, the MCP layer derives a deterministic retry key from the tool and business arguments so an accidental identical replay cannot create duplicate work.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`name`	No
`limit`	No
`domain`	No
`market`	No
`region`	No
`seatId`	No
`markets`	No
`website`	No
`seatName`	No
`brandName`	No
`advertiserId`	No
`competitorId`	No
`evidenceMode`	No	DISPLAY
`forceRefresh`	No
`lookbackDays`	No
`strategyMode`	No	BOTH
`evidenceLimit`	No
`strategyModes`	No
`targetMarkets`	No
`competitorName`	No
`competitorDomain`	No
`competitorWebsite`	No
`recommendationMode`	No	FULL
`competitorKeyMessages`	No
`competitorPositioning`	No
`advertiserGuidanceSnapshot`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 7, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / recommendationMode

Added value: +{
+  "default": "FULL",
+  "enum": [
+    "FULL",
+    "EVIDENCE_ONLY"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 1, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / competitorKeyMessages

Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "maxLength": 300,
+    "minLength": 1,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "maxItems": 8,
+  "type": "array"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / competitorPositioning

Added value: +{
+  "maxLength": 1200,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}

Changed2 schema fields changedAug 14, 2026
- changedInput schema / properties / evidenceLimit / maximum
```
Previous value: -24New value: +48
```
- changedInput schema / properties / limit / maximum
```
Previous value: -24New value: +48
```
AddedAug 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses behavior well beyond the annotations: it creates billable AI usage, executes synchronously, forbids task support, lists mutation modes (validate_only/preview_only/execute), and states a partial-failure policy of completed_items_not_rolled_back. It also explains idempotency-key derivation for accidental replays. These are exactly the operational facts an agent cannot get from readOnlyHint/destructiveHint/idempotentHint.

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?

Purpose is correctly front-loaded, but the text then becomes a boilerplate dump (classification, execution, task support, mutation modes, partial-failure policy) plus a long paragraph of output-formatting instructions. It also contains a doubled-period typo ('available..'), and much of the boilerplate is generic rather than tool-specific.

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

Completeness4/5

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, and the description still covers billable/synchronous behavior, reuse semantics, partial-failure handling, and how to present results (assistantSummary first). What is missing is any coverage of the large, undocumented parameter surface.

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?

With 26 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description only illuminates a few of them: forceRefresh (existing result reused when omitted), evidenceMode default DISPLAY, and lookbackDays at 90 days. The remaining identity/scoping parameters (name, domain, market, region, seatId, advertiserId, competitorId, etc.) get no explanation, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Run canonical LeanrIQ Competitor Intelligence V2 for one advertiser-scoped competitor.' The scope ('one advertiser-scoped competitor') is precise. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as get_competitor_intelligence, list_competitors, or list_competitor_evidence, so the agent must infer 'run = generate' vs 'get = retrieve'.

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?

It gives useful operating context (defaults match Studio, and an existing canonical result is reused without forceRefresh), which implies when a re-run is or isn't needed. But it never states when to prefer this over the read-only competitor siblings or when-not to use it, so routing guidance is only implied.

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?