Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Rivalize MCP Server

Rivalize MCP Server

by Downshift
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Get competitive landscape

get_competitive_landscape
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve current or stored weekly competitor positions on activity and strategic importance to identify momentum shifts and emerging threats.

Instructions

Get the current or stored weekly competitor positions on activity × strategic importance.

Args:

  • project_id (string, required): the project's UUID. Call list_projects first for the id.

  • week (YYYY-MM-DD, optional): a stored ISO week; omit for current positions. The json format lists stored weeks in availableWeeks.

  • format ("markdown" | "json", optional): markdown by default; json for the full structure

  • page (number, optional): 1-based page when the Markdown is over 25,000 characters; each page names the next call

Returns agent-ready Markdown by default (JSON on request) with coordinates, trailing signal counts, momentum, latest headlines, importance source, available weeks, and the honest tracking-start date. Historical weeks are never synthesized. History requires Pro; the current view remains available below Pro.

Use when: "who is the biggest moving threat?" or "who moved most this month?".

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_competitive_landscape"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo1-based page of a long Markdown document; every page is under 25,000 characters
weekNoStored ISO week start; omit for current positions
formatNomarkdown (default, compact, agent-ready) or json (full structure)
project_idYesProject UUID from list_projects

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.2

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real disclosure: history is never synthesized, stored weeks exist only for Pro accounts, the return includes an 'honest tracking-start date', and long Markdown is paginated with each page naming the next call. Return-format and gating behavior are thus visible, though rate limits and failure modes are unstated.

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 and the 'Use when' trigger are front-loaded and the block structure is scannable, but the four-item Args section duplicates schema descriptions almost verbatim (week, format, page, project_id), so several lines do not earn their place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so reasonably: coordinates, trailing signal counts, momentum, latest headlines, importance source, available weeks, and tracking-start date. Pagination semantics are also covered, leaving only edge cases like empty/absent weeks unspecified.

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 coverage is 100% and all four parameters are already described in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The Args block largely restates the schema; its only marginal additions are the cross-reference to availableWeeks and the instruction to call list_projects first for the id.

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 ('Get') plus a precisely scoped resource ('current or stored weekly competitor positions on activity × strategic importance'), which separates it from siblings like get_competitor_intelligence, get_battlecard, and get_strategic_timeline. An agent can tell what it produces without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit trigger phrases are given ('who is the biggest moving threat?', 'who moved most this month?') along with prerequisites ('Call list_projects first for the id') and a tier gate ('History requires Pro; the current view remains available below Pro'). It stops short of naming which sibling to use instead when the question is not about movement.

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