Skip to main content
Glama
competlab

competlab-mcp-server

by competlab
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_tech_trust_history

Read-only

Retrieve paginated history of Tech & Trust monitoring runs, including run summaries and completion timestamps. Check pagination.hasMore for additional pages.

Instructions

Get paginated history of Tech & Trust monitoring runs. Returns run summaries with completion timestamps. Check pagination.hasMore to fetch additional pages. Each row carries the same summary shape as get_tech_trust_dashboard, so the same reading rule applies: a null is a run we could not measure, never a zero. The two gap figures are null when there was no comparison to make — either side unmeasured, or no competitor to compare against — so a null gap is not a tie. A row whose customer.securitySignalsAvailable is present is a run where the customer's own response headers were blocked, which also leaves customer.techStackCount a floor rather than a total — do not read a rise or fall across such a row as a real change in their stack.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoPage number (1-indexed, default: 1)
limitNoItems per page (default: 20, max: 100)
projectIdYesProject ID (from list_projects)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv4.0.1
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / page / maximum
      Added value: +9007199254740991
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower; the description nonetheless adds substantive semantics: null means unmeasured not zero, a null gap is not a tie, and present customer.securitySignalsAvailable means blocked headers with techStackCount acting as a floor. That is real interpretive context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose in the first sentence, then pagination handling, then interpretation rules. Four sentences is long but each carries non-redundant guidance; nothing is filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey return shape, and it does: run summaries keyed to the dashboard's summary shape, pagination.hasMore, and the null/floor caveats. It stops short of a full field inventory, but the borrowed dashboard shape and caveats cover what an agent needs to read results correctly.

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 page, limit, and projectId are already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description adds only the pagination.hasMore follow-up signal, not new syntax or defaults beyond the schema.

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: 'Get paginated history of Tech & Trust monitoring runs,' plus what a row contains (run summaries with completion timestamps). It distinguishes itself from sibling get_tech_trust_dashboard (current snapshot) and get_tech_trust_run_detail (single run) by scope, even referencing the dashboard explicitly.

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 by the name and the 'paginated history' framing, and it tells the agent to check pagination.hasMore for more pages. But it never explicitly says when to pick this over get_tech_trust_dashboard vs get_tech_trust_run_detail, so routing is left to inference.

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