Skip to main content
Glama
competlab

competlab-mcp-server

by competlab
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_pricing_dashboard

Read-only

Retrieve up to five pricing plans per competitor, market statistics, and gap analysis to benchmark your pricing and spot opportunities.

Instructions

The latest Pricing Intelligence for every competitor: up to 5 plans each (name, price, billing interval, summary), market statistics, and the gap analysis. A pricing page is the thing most likely to be missing: many vendors publish none, and many gate it.

  • null means WE DID NOT CHECK. hasFreePlan: null is never 'no free plan'; a measured false is a real finding. When the customer's pricing could not be analysed, every metric on summary.customer is null and pricingAnalysisAvailable says why. A competitor row with pricingDataAvailable has a null content and a reason (no pricing page found, the page did not respond, a problem on our side): never 'they offer no pricing'.

  • A null gap is not 'no gap'. All three gap flags are null when either side is unmeasured. hasPriceGap is also null below three comparable competitor prices, or when the customer's own price is not comparable, so a null hasPriceGap beside a false free-tier gap is consistent.

  • marketAvgPrice and pricePositionPercent are null below three comparable prices: 'not enough market to average', never zero.

  • COMPARABLE means fixed monthly amounts in ONE currency and ONE licensed unit. marketPricingUnit names the unit ('flat', 'per-seat', 'per-license'); always state it with the average. Compare summary.customer.popularPlanUnit with it first: when they differ, pricePositionPercent is null for that reason, not because anything failed.

  • Runs recorded before unit grouping carry no marketPricingUnit and their averages may mix units: say so rather than quoting a like-for-like market price.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectIdYesProject ID (from list_projects)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv4.0.1
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds substantial behavioral context the annotations cannot, e.g. that null means 'WE DID NOT CHECK', that pricingAnalysisAvailable gives the reason, and that hasPriceGap is null below three comparable prices. It stops short of any auth, rate-limit or freshness/latency disclosure, but the interpretation rules are genuinely valuable.

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 is front-loaded in the first sentence and the remaining dashes each carry a distinct interpretation rule rather than filler. It is long and dense for a single-parameter read tool, and some of it (e.g. repeated 'a null X is not Y' constructions) could be tightened, but with no output schema most sentences earn their place.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly carries the return-value burden and does it thoroughly: field meanings, null semantics, comparability rules and the pre-unit-grouping caveat are all covered. What is missing is any link to the run/history siblings or pagination/limit behavior, which leaves a small gap for an agent deciding where this fits.

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?

There is a single required parameter (projectId) and schema description coverage is 100% with the schema itself stating 'Project ID (from list_projects)'. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is the expected baseline when the schema fully documents it.

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 opening sentence names the resource and its payload precisely ('The latest Pricing Intelligence for every competitor: up to 5 plans each ... market statistics, and the gap analysis'), which is a specific, inspectable outcome. It does not, however, name or contrast itself with obvious siblings such as get_pricing_history or get_pricing_run_detail, so an agent must infer from 'latest' that this is the snapshot rather than the trend.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The text is almost entirely about interpreting returned nulls, not about when to select this tool over get_pricing_history, get_pricing_run_detail or get_positioning_dashboard. No preconditions, no 'use this when / use the sibling when' routing is offered, so the agent gets no selection guidance.

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