Skip to main content
Glama
Downshift

Rivalize MCP Server

by Downshift
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Get competitor battlecard

get_battlecard
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a cited sales battlecard for a tracked competitor to prep calls, counter objections, and identify weak points with source-backed claims.

Instructions

Get the cited sales battlecard for one tracked competitor — Why We Win, Their Weaknesses, Objection Handlers, Discovery Questions. Every claim carries citations resolving to the collected source; claims that could not be cited were WITHHELD, not asserted.

Args:

  • competitor_id (string, required): the competitor UUID (from list_competitors)

Returns JSON: { data: { status, sections_empty, sections_locked, withheld_reason?, battlecard, markdown, generated_at, intelligence_date, source, report_id?, report_date? } }.

  • status is read off the card's four sections. "ready": every section carries a cited claim. "partial": at least one section has none; sections_empty names them (sections_locked names the ones locked until the user's company profile is complete, which were not withheld). "withheld": the card exists but no section carries a claim; withheld_reason says why. Do not treat "partial" or "withheld" as a complete card.

  • "markdown" is a paste-ready cited card and states a partial or withheld card up front. source "generated" is a card generated from the dashboard's Battlecard tab; source "report" is the battlecard inside the competitor's latest report, and report_id names that report (get_report reads it in full).

  • status "not_generated": no card can be served — none generated, and the latest report has none (or only one in an older format that fails the citation contract). The user generates one from the dashboard's Battlecard tab.

Requires a Pro-plan API key (403 PLAN_REQUIRED below Pro). 404 if the competitor is not in your account (tenant isolation).

Use when: "give me sales ammo against ", "how do we win vs ", or prepping a call.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
competitor_idYesCompetitor UUID from list_competitors

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.2

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare a safe read (readOnlyHint/idempotent/destructive=false), yet the description adds substantial behavior: the citation contract and WITHHELD-claim rule, the four status values (ready/partial/withheld/not_generated) with their meanings, Pro-plan 403 PLAN_REQUIRED, and 404 tenant isolation. This is far beyond what structured fields convey.

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?

Front-loads purpose before the args and return contract, and the verbose status enumeration earns its place given there is no output schema. It is longer than strictly necessary, but most sentences carry decision-relevant detail rather than padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully documents the return shape (status, sections_empty/locked, withheld_reason, markdown, source/report_id) and the error paths (403, 404). Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret this tool is missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented as 'Competitor UUID from list_competitors'. The description repeats that same hint ('from list_competitors') without adding format or sourcing detail, so the baseline 3 for fully-covered single-param tools applies.

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 verb+resource ('Get the cited sales battlecard for one tracked competitor') and enumerates the four content sections, so the agent knows exactly what artifact is produced. The 'cited' qualifier plus the withheld-claims clause distinguishes it from generic intelligence siblings like get_competitor_intelligence.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides explicit trigger phrases ('give me sales ammo against <competitor>', 'how do we win vs <competitor>', prepping a call), giving clear context for selection. It does not, however, name an alternative tool or state when NOT to use it, so it stops short of full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools