Skip to main content
Glama
Downshift

Rivalize MCP Server

by Downshift
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Get evidence

get_evidence
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve the sources behind a product or competitor's facts from the project report, so you can cite claims and trace where each figure came from.

Instructions

The sources behind the facts for ONE subject: your own product (omit competitor_id) or one tracked competitor. Taken from the latest readable report in the project that analysed the subject, as the report serves it: claims the report withholds as unverified are withheld here too, and a figure the report has corrected shows the corrected value.

Args:

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

  • competitor_id (string, optional): a competitor UUID from list_competitors (it must be in this project). Omit for your own product.

Returns JSON: { data: { project_id, subject: { kind ("product" | "competitor"), competitor_id, name, website }, report: { id, created_at } | null, source_count, unlinked_attributions, off_entity_withheld, sources: Source[] } }. Each Source: url, supports (what it backs: the fact, claim or section, as the report states it), kinds (attribution, page_read, press, strength_receipt, fact, battlecard, interpretation), observed_at (the date of the report run that read it) and, for press, published_at (the article's own date). unlinked_attributions counts data points the report attributed to a description rather than a URL; they are not listed, and no URL is made up for them. off_entity_withheld counts sources a web search for the subject's name returned that are not about the subject (not on its domain, and neither the URL nor any text the report keeps for it names the subject, e.g. a stock page for a similarly named company); they are not listed. With no readable report on the subject, sources is empty and note says why.

Returns a 404 error if the project is not in your account, or if competitor_id is not a competitor in this project (another account's competitor is reported exactly like one that does not exist).

Use when: "where does that come from?", "show me the sources for 's pricing", or to cite a claim.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesProject UUID from list_projects
competitor_idNoA competitor UUID from list_competitors; omit for your own product

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/open-world safety profile, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: unverified claims are withheld, corrected values are shown corrected, unlinked_attributions and off_entity_withheld are counted but not listed and no URLs are invented, and an empty sources array with an explanatory note is returned when no report is readable. The 404 semantics are also spelled out, including the deliberate indistinguishability of another account's competitor.

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 core purpose, then structured Args and Returns sections. It is long and dense, but with no output schema the return-format detail largely earns its place; a couple of parenthetical explanations (e.g. the stock-page example) could be trimmed.

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 and no nested objects, the description carries the full burden of return-value documentation and does so thoroughly: the wrapper shape, each Source field, the withheld-count semantics, and the null-report case are all covered. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret this tool is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds meaning beyond the schema by stating the competitor must belong to the same project and by routing the agent to list_projects and list_competitors for valid IDs, including the cross-account 404 consequence.

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 resource and scope: 'the sources behind the facts for ONE subject: your own product (omit competitor_id) or one tracked competitor.' An agent can distinguish this from get_report, get_competitor_intelligence, and get_battlecard without opening schemas, and the subject-selection mechanism is explicit.

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 'Use when' triggers ('where does that come from?', 'show me the sources for <competitor>'s pricing', citing a claim) and clarifies when to omit competitor_id. It does not name a sibling alternative for when a full report or battlecard is wanted instead, but the positive usage context is clear.

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