Skip to main content
Glama
PROMPTEYE-SP-Z-O-O

prompteye-mcp

Official
by PROMPTEYE-SP-Z-O-O
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

List brands excluded from competitor rankings

list_competitor_exclusions
Read-only

The brands the project keeps out of its competitor rankings. Everything the assistants name is a candidate competitor, so the ranking picks up resellers, marketplaces, directories, and the client's own agency until they are excluded here.

Instructions

The brands the project keeps out of its competitor rankings. Everything the assistants name is a candidate competitor, so the ranking picks up resellers, marketplaces, directories, and the client's own agency until they are excluded here.

Excluding a brand drops it from competitor rankings and share-of-voice calculations across historical data.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectIdYesThe project to work on — its id from list_projects. Required on every call, so that parallel conversations never read or write each other's project.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.0.28
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties / projectId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The project to work on — its id from list_projects. Required on every call, so that parallel conversations never read or write each other's project.",
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / required
      Added value: +[
+  "projectId"
+]
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.22
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": false,
+        "properties": {
+          "aliases": {
+            "items": {
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "type": "array"
+          },
+          "name": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "name",
+          "aliases"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "data"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. Addedv1.0.12

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful domain context about resellers, marketplaces, and historical share-of-voice impact, but it does not describe this list operation's own behavior such as pagination or scope beyond projectId.

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?

The definition is short and front-loaded, with the resource identified in the first sentence and supporting context after it. It is slightly verbose in the explanatory middle sentence but still efficient overall.

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?

Given a single fully documented parameter, existing annotations, and an output schema, the description supplies enough domain context to interpret what exclusion means and why these brands are listed. It lacks an explicit statement that this returns the current exclusion list, but the title and structure make that clear.

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%, so the single projectId parameter is fully documented in the schema without needing description support. The description does not add any parameter-specific syntax or constraints beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the resource as the project's excluded competitor brands, distinguishing it from the broader competitor list by explaining that these are brands kept out of rankings. It does not name the sibling tool that performs exclusion, but the scope is still obvious from the title and first sentence.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied: an agent can infer this tool is for viewing competitor exclusions, and the description explains why exclusions exist. However, it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus set_competitor_exclusions or list_competitors.

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