Skip to main content
Glama
competlab

competlab-mcp-server

get_tech_trust_run_detail

Retrieve historical Tech & Trust data for a specific run. Compare competitor-by-competitor metrics to investigate changes between monitoring cycles or audit past results.

Instructions

Get full competitor-by-competitor Tech & Trust data for a specific historical run. Returns the same data structure as get_tech_trust_dashboard but for a past point in time. Use this to investigate what changed between runs or to audit a specific monitoring cycle. Requires runId from get_tech_trust_history. Read-only. Returns JSON object.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectIdYesProject ID (from list_projects)
runIdYesRun ID (from get_tech_trust_history)

Implementation Reference

  • Schema and path definition for the 'get_tech_trust_run_detail' tool. Defines parameters (projectId, runId) and the API path used to retrieve historical Tech & Trust run data.
    {
      name: "get_tech_trust_run_detail",
      description:
        "Get full competitor-by-competitor Tech & Trust data for a specific historical run. Returns the same data structure as get_tech_trust_dashboard but for a past point in time. Use this to investigate what changed between runs or to audit a specific monitoring cycle. Requires runId from get_tech_trust_history. Read-only. Returns JSON object.",
      parameters: z.object({
        projectId: objectId("Project ID (from list_projects)"),
        runId: objectId("Run ID (from get_tech_trust_history)"),
      }),
      path: (a) => `/v1/projects/${a.projectId}/tech-trust/history/${a.runId}`,
    },
  • src/index.ts:16-25 (registration)
    Generic tool registration loop that registers all tools (including get_tech_trust_run_detail) from the tools array onto the MCP server, dynamically building path and query params.
    for (const tool of tools) {
      server.tool(tool.name, tool.description, tool.parameters.shape, async (args: Record<string, any>) => {
        const path = tool.path(args);
        const query: Record<string, any> = {};
        for (const key of tool.queryParams ?? []) {
          if (args[key] !== undefined) query[key] = args[key];
        }
        return apiGet(path, Object.keys(query).length ? query : undefined);
      });
    }
  • Generic handler function that executes the tool logic by calling the API with the constructed path and query parameters; this is the same handler used by all tools including get_tech_trust_run_detail.
    server.tool(tool.name, tool.description, tool.parameters.shape, async (args: Record<string, any>) => {
      const path = tool.path(args);
      const query: Record<string, any> = {};
      for (const key of tool.queryParams ?? []) {
        if (args[key] !== undefined) query[key] = args[key];
      }
      return apiGet(path, Object.keys(query).length ? query : undefined);
    });
  • API client helper (apiGet) that performs the actual HTTP GET request to the CompetLab API. Called by the generic handler to fetch data for all tools including get_tech_trust_run_detail.
    const API_BASE = "https://api.competlab.com";
    
    export async function apiGet(
      path: string,
      query?: Record<string, string | number>,
    ): Promise<{ content: Array<{ type: "text"; text: string }>; isError?: true }> {
      const apiKey = process.env.COMPETLAB_API_KEY;
      if (!apiKey) {
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: "text",
              text: JSON.stringify({
                error: "api_key_missing",
                message: "COMPETLAB_API_KEY environment variable is not set",
              }),
            },
          ],
          isError: true,
        };
      }
    
      const url = new URL(`${API_BASE}${path}`);
      if (query) {
        for (const [k, v] of Object.entries(query)) {
          if (v !== undefined) url.searchParams.set(k, String(v));
        }
      }
    
      try {
        const res = await fetch(url, {
          headers: { "CL-API-Key": apiKey },
        });
    
        const body = await res.text();
    
        if (!res.ok) {
          return { content: [{ type: "text", text: body }], isError: true };
        }
    
        return { content: [{ type: "text", text: body }] };
      } catch (err) {
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: "text",
              text: JSON.stringify({
                error: "api_unreachable",
                message:
                  err instanceof Error ? err.message : "Failed to reach CompetLab API",
                status: 503,
              }),
            },
          ],
          isError: true,
        };
      }
    }
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Read-only' and 'Returns JSON object,' covering key behavioral traits. However, it does not detail auth requirements, rate limits, or error cases, which is acceptable for a read-only tool.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. Each sentence adds value: purpose, relationship to another tool, and usage guidance. Front-loaded with the key action.

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?

Given no output schema, the description references a known structure ('same data structure as get_tech_trust_dashboard'), which is helpful. It covers purpose, input, output type, and usage context. The only minor gap is assuming knowledge of the dashboard structure.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters (projectId and runId). The description reinforces the prerequisite for runId but adds no semantic meaning beyond the schema. 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 clearly states 'Get full competitor-by-competitor Tech & Trust data for a specific historical run,' providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_tech_trust_dashboard (current data) and get_tech_trust_history (list of runs) by focusing on a past point in time.

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?

The description includes explicit usage context: 'Use this to investigate what changed between runs or to audit a specific monitoring cycle. Requires runId from get_tech_trust_history.' It provides a clear use case and prerequisite, but does not list alternative tools or when not to use.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/competlab/competlab-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server