Skip to main content
Glama

Particle Podcast Compare Share Of Voice

particle_podcast_compare_share_of_voice
Read-only

Compare how two to five companies, people or entities are spoken of on podcasts, side by side: "how is NVIDIA spoken of vs AMD vs Intel?" in one call. Each subject's mention lines over the same window (default the last 30 days, at most 365) are grouped by their label on one speaker statement characteristics axis — by="sentiment" (default), certainty, specificity or temporal_orientation — and each label's share is of that subject's scored mentions, the lines that carry labels. A subject with fewer than 20 is marked low sample: read its shares as examples. By default it counts guests' and panelists' lines; speakers="all" adds hosts.

Each subject is exactly what particle_podcast_get_share_of_voice returns for it with the same arguments and by set to the axis, so the numbers agree. breakdown splits each label group by a second axis (how sure each subject's predictions are is by="temporal_orientation", breakdown="certainty"); speaker_statement_characteristics counts only lines said a certain way; podcast_slug or publisher_slug narrows to one show or network.

Pass every subject in one list, in the order to show them: a subject that matches nothing, or has no knowledge-graph entity, is an error naming it, never a silent zero. Not for who says it by occupation (particle_podcast_get_share_of_voice, one subject at a time), for the lines themselves (particle_podcast_find_mentions with the same speaker_statement_characteristics), or for mention volume over time (particle_podcast_get_mention_trends).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
byNoThe axis whose labels each subject's lines are grouped by: 'sentiment' (default; how negatively or positively each is spoken of), 'certainty', 'specificity' or 'temporal_orientation'.
speakersNoWhose lines count: 'guests' (default; guests and panelists) or 'all' (hosts included).
breakdownNoAlso split each label group by a second axis: by='temporal_orientation' with breakdown='certainty' is how sure each subject's predictions are. Must differ from by.
include_adsNoCount mentions inside ad reads too. Off by default: ad copy is not a speaker's voice.
entity_slugsNoTwo to five knowledge-graph entity slugs from particle_entity_resolve for anything that isn't a person or company (e.g. ["germany", "france"]).
person_slugsNoTwo to five person slugs from particle_person_resolve, in the order to compare them (e.g. ["sam-altman", "dario-amodei"]).
podcast_slugNoOnly mentions inside this podcast (slug from particle_podcast_resolve).
company_slugsNoTwo to five company slugs or domains from particle_company_resolve, in the order to compare them (e.g. ["nvidia", "amd", "intel"]). One of company_slugs, person_slugs or entity_slugs is required.
output_formatNoOutput serialization. 'markdown' (default) returns the LLM-facing rendering. 'json' returns the structured payload as JSON text — use only for programmatic chaining where exact field extraction matters; the JSON shape is larger and noisier for an LLM to read.
publisher_slugNoOnly mentions on podcasts of this publisher (network), by slug.
published_afterNoOnly episodes published on or after this date (YYYY-MM-DD). Defaults to 30 days before published_before; the window may span at most 365 days.
published_beforeNoOnly episodes published on or before this date (YYYY-MM-DD). Defaults to now.
speaker_statement_characteristicsNoCount only mentions said a certain way, for every subject: {"temporal_orientation": ["future"]} compares how each subject's predictions lean. Labels listed for one axis match any of them; axes combine with AND, so add only the axes the request names.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Although annotations already mark this as a safe read-only operation, the description adds substantial behavioral context: default speaker inclusion, ad exclusion, low-sample marking under 20 scored mentions, error behavior for unmatched subjects, and exact agreement with the single-subject share-of-voice tool. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is long but front-loads the core purpose and example, then organizes details about defaults, grouping axes, errors, and alternatives. It is dense but mostly earns its length for a 13-parameter nested tool, though some repetition around grouping axes could be tightened.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a complex 13-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the important behavioral surface: scope, defaults, grouping, sample-size warnings, error semantics, and relationships to sibling tools. An agent has enough information to select and invoke it correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema carries most parameter definitions. The description still adds useful semantics: subjects must be passed in one ordered list, at least one of company/person/entity slug lists is required, and `speaker_statement_characteristics` filters counted lines rather than just annotating them.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific action — comparing how 2–5 companies, people, or entities are spoken of on podcasts side by side — with a concrete example. It clearly distinguishes the tool from the single-subject `particle_podcast_get_share_of_voice` by emphasizing the multi-subject comparison and aligned outputs.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly describes when to use this tool and names alternatives for adjacent tasks: single-subject occupation breakdowns, raw mentions, and volume-over-time trends. It also gives clear conditions such as default 30-day window, maximum 365 days, and low-sample behavior.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources