PostKing MCP Server

competitor_refresh

Refresh all active competitors for your brand by re-crawling and re-profiling them asynchronously. Poll get_job to track completion.

Instructions

Async. Refresh all active competitors for the brand (re-crawl + re-profile). Returns { operationId, status } — poll get_job until state=completed. Typically takes ~2–5 min.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "competitor_refresh"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`brandId`	No	Brand ID (defaults to active brand)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.7Aug 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavioral traits: it is asynchronous, returns { operationId, status }, requires polling get_job until state=completed, and takes ~2–5 minutes. This gives the agent a clear operational picture beyond the tool name.

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 two sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded ('Async. Refresh all active competitors...') and the second sentence providing return format and polling instructions. Every word earns its place with no unnecessary detail.

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?

For an async operation with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the return value, monitoring procedure, and expected runtime. It provides sufficient information for an agent to invoke the tool and follow up via get_job.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for brandId, including its default behavior. The description does not add additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 applies as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states a specific action: 'Refresh all active competitors for the brand (re-crawl + re-profile).' It specifies the verb (refresh), resource (active competitors), and scope (all for the brand), distinguishing it from sibling tools like competitor_analyze or competitor_probe.

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?

The description provides context about the async nature and typical runtime (~2–5 min), implying when to use it (when refreshing all active competitors). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria compared to other competitor_* tools, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server