Skip to main content
Glama
Downshift

Rivalize MCP Server

by Downshift
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Get strategic timeline

get_strategic_timeline
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a receipt-linked timeline of competitor activity across pricing, product, people, funding, and content lanes to track strategic moves over a chosen window.

Instructions

Get a receipt-linked timeline of competitor activity across Pricing, Product, People, Funding, and Content/Social lanes.

Args:

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

  • days ("30" | "90" | "180", optional): history window, default 90

  • competitor_id (string, optional): isolate one competitor

  • lanes (string[], optional): only these lanes, any of pricing, product, people, funding, content-social

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

  • page (number, optional): 1-based page of the Markdown. A timeline over 25,000 characters is split at lane/move boundaries; each page says "Page N of M", what remains and the exact next call.

Returns agent-ready Markdown by default (JSON on request) with structured events, seven-day move clusters, tracking-since dates, and evidence URLs. History is never backfilled before Rivalize began tracking. Full history/all-competitor access requires Pro; lower plans can request one competitor for 30 days.

Use when: "what strategic moves have competitors made this quarter?" or "show the arc behind recent competitor activity".

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
daysNoHistory window; defaults to 90 days
pageNo1-based page of a long Markdown document; every page is under 25,000 characters
lanesNoOnly these lanes: pricing, product, people, funding, content-social
formatNomarkdown (default, compact, agent-ready) or json (full structure, much larger)
project_idYesProject UUID from list_projects
competitor_idNoLimit the timeline to one competitor

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 cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description adds rich operational context: pagination splits at lane/move boundaries above 25,000 chars with 'Page N of M' and the exact next call, plan gating (Pro for full history/all competitors; lower plans limited to one competitor for 30 days), and the no-backfill-before-tracking limit.

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?

Well front-loaded: purpose, then Args, then Returns, then usage triggers, so the most important framing comes first. Some redundancy exists between the Args block and the schema, but each section still carries distinct value.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the return shape (structured events, seven-day move clusters, tracking-since dates, evidence URLs) and format switching. Combined with the plan limits, backfill caveat, and pagination contract, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret it.

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 already 100%, so the schema fully documents all six parameters; the Args block largely restates them. The description adds minor nuance (markdown 'compact' vs json 'full structure') but does not meaningfully extend the enum/type information the schema already supplies. Baseline 3 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 and resource ('Get a receipt-linked timeline of competitor activity') plus the exact lanes covered. An agent can distinguish this arc/timeline view from siblings like get_competitor_intelligence, get_battlecard, or get_freshness without opening any 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?

Provides explicit trigger questions ('what strategic moves have competitors made this quarter?', 'show the arc behind recent competitor activity') and a prerequisite ('Call list_projects first for the id'). It lacks any when-not guidance or named alternatives among the many sibling intelligence tools, which keeps it short of a 5.

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