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

prompteye-mcp

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

Set brands excluded from competitor rankings

set_competitor_exclusions
DestructiveIdempotent

Replaces the complete exclusion list for the project with the one provided. Read the current list with list_competitor_exclusions first if you want to add to existing exclusions rather than replace them.

Instructions

Replaces the complete exclusion list for the project with the one provided. Read the current list with list_competitor_exclusions first if you want to add to existing exclusions rather than replace them.

Excluding a brand drops it from the competitor rankings, share of voice, and citations across all historical measurements. Accepts up to 50 excluded brands, each with optional alternative spellings/aliases.

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.
exclusionsYesComplete list of excluded brands. Sending an empty array excludes nobody.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.28
    • 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"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "exclusions"
-]New value: +[
+  "projectId",
+  "exclusions"
+]
  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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations already mark this as destructive, idempotent, and not read-only, but the description adds important behavioral context beyond them: it replaces the entire list, exclusion removes a brand from competitor rankings, share of voice, and citations across historical measurements, and it accepts up to 50 brands with optional aliases. That is strong disclosure of the destructive effect and scope.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short, front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place: first the replacement behavior, then the sibling-tool guidance, then the consequences and capacity limit. There is no wasted text.

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?

Given the rich annotations, full schema coverage, and an existing output schema, the description covers the critical behavior an agent needs: replacement vs append, historical impact, and limits. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both projectId and exclusions, including nested name/aliases constraints and the meaning of an empty array. The description adds useful context about the replacement semantics and the 50-brand limit, but most parameter-level detail is already in the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: it replaces the complete competitor exclusion list for a project. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from list_competitor_exclusions, so an agent can tell it apart from the sibling read tool 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 Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly tells the agent to read the current list with list_competitor_exclusions first if the goal is to add to existing exclusions rather than replace them. This gives a clear when-to-use-this-vs-alternative rule, which is exactly what the usage dimension asks for.

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