Skip to main content
Glama
Downshift

Rivalize MCP Server

by Downshift
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Get competitor intelligence

get_competitor_intelligence
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve stored competitive intelligence for one tracked competitor by UUID, including momentum, snapshots, and any linked report data. Use after listing competitors to get source-backed intel.

Instructions

Get the latest stored intelligence for one tracked competitor.

Args:

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

Returns JSON: { data: { competitor_name, momentum_score, intelligence, latest_snapshot, source, source_report_id, source_report_date, report } }. source says where the data comes from: "snapshot" (a stored intelligence snapshot), "report" (the competitor's latest report in your account; report holds swot, strengths, weaknesses, key_findings, tech_stack, pricing_tiers, social and reviews, and source_report_id names the report for get_report), or "none" (the competitor appears in no snapshot or report yet). Every field is present only when measured: null or absent means "not measured", not "none". Claims the report withheld as unverified are withheld here too.

Returns a 404 error if the competitor does not belong to your account (tenant isolation).

Use when: "what's the latest intel on ?" after finding its id via list_competitors. For the full narrative, get_report with competitor is richer.

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile, but the description adds real behavioral context they don't: a 404 on cross-tenant access, the meaning of null/absent fields ("not measured" vs "none"), and that unverified claims withheld in the source report are withheld here too. This materially changes how an agent interprets results.

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-loaded with the one-line purpose, then Args/Returns/Use-when blocks that are easy to scan. The Returns block is long but earns its space given there is no output schema; minor redundancy between the Args block and the schema.

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 carries the return contract itself and does so thoroughly: field list, source enumeration (snapshot/report/none), a pointer from source_report_id to get_report, and null semantics. An agent can correctly call and interpret this tool from the description alone.

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 the schema already documents competitor_id as the UUID from list_competitors, so the description's Args block largely restates it. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 latest stored intelligence for one tracked competitor") and scopes it to a single tracked entity. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the richer sibling by noting get_report is the fuller narrative.

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?

Gives a concrete trigger phrase ("what's the latest intel on <competitor>?"), a prerequisite (find the id via list_competitors), and names the alternative (get_report) with the condition that selects it. Nothing is left to inference.

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