Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Unilytics MCP Server

Unilytics MCP Server

Official
by TeamUnilytics
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

list_competitor_monitors

Read-only

Lists competitor sites a user is actively monitoring for changes, with IDs, domains, schedules, status, and credit costs. Use it to see what is being watched or filter by project.

Instructions

List the competitor sites this user is currently monitoring for changes.

Returns each of the user's active monitors with its monitor_id, domain, project_id,
schedule, status and credits per scheduled run, newest first, plus the most active
monitors one user can have. Use when the user asks what is being watched.

Args:
    project_id: Optional — only monitors labelled with this Unilytics project
                (one the user can access; from list_projects).
    limit: Max monitors to return (1-100). Default 20.

[Provider: Parallel AI]

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
project_idNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the returned fields, newest-first ordering, and the per-user cap on active monitors.

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 purpose and return shape are front-loaded in the first two sentences, and the Args block is compact. The trailing '[Provider: Parallel AI]' tag and the slightly awkward 'plus the most active monitors one user can have' clause add minor noise.

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 enumerates the returned fields and ordering, and both optional parameters are fully specified. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret the result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does so: project_id is explained as a label filter restricted to accessible projects sourced from list_projects, and limit is bounded (1-100) with a stated default of 20.

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 ('List the competitor sites this user is currently monitoring') and scopes it to the user's active monitors, which cleanly separates it from watch_competitor, stop_watching_competitor, and get_competitor_changes.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Use when the user asks what is being watched') and points to list_projects as the source of project_id. It does not name a when-not condition or an alternative listing tool, so it stops 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