Skip to main content
Glama

get_competitive_positioning

Read-only

Compare your product to a named competitor from the buyer's view. Add competitor features to reveal overlaps, differences, and better-fit strengths, or omit them to find likely buyer concerns.

Instructions

How you compare with a specific competitor, from the buyer's point of view. Pass the competitor's features in competitorFeatures to get where you overlap, where you're different, and where you're the better fit; without them you get the concerns this buyer is likely to raise. Free. For a written comparison to share, generate the Competitive Positioning Framework with generate_asset.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contextNoAdditional context (e.g., "enterprise deal", "competing on price")
verticalNoThe industry the user sells into (e.g., "fintech", "healthcare", "defense"). Infer from conversation context — the user's product description, company name, or the companies they're asking about. If unclear, ask.
targetRoleNoThe buyer role being evaluated (e.g., "CFO", "CTO", "VP Sales"). Infer from context — often explicit in the user's question. If not mentioned, default to the most senior relevant role for their vertical.
competitorNameYesCompetitor company name
competitorFeaturesNoKnown competitor features or capabilities
productDescriptionNoA brief description of what the user's product does and who it's for. Infer this from the conversation if the user has already described their product. If the user hasn't mentioned their product yet, ask them: "What does your product do, and who do you sell to?" before calling this tool.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.4.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine beyond-schema context: the output differs based on inputs (overlap/differentiation/fit vs. likely buyer concerns) and that the call is "Free", a useful cost trait. It doesn't cover latency or result ranking, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the input-driven behavior, then the alternative — three tightly ordered sentences with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 a read-only comparison tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description supplies the missing pieces: what the output represents and how it varies, plus the escape hatch to the asset-generation sibling. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is absent.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by explaining the conditional effect of `competitorFeatures` (what you get with vs. without them). The schema itself carries the infer-from-context guidance for the other params, which is strong.

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+resource and frames it precisely ("How you compare with a specific competitor, from the buyer's point of view"), which is distinct from sibling analysis tools like get_icp_fit_score or get_evaluation_criteria. It also names the sibling (generate_asset) it is not, so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly conditions behavior on the presence of `competitorFeatures` and names the alternative route for a shareable output ("For a written comparison to share, generate the Competitive Positioning Framework with `generate_asset`"). Both the when-to-use and the alternative are stated.

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