Priceminder MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

map_competitors

Map or replace all competitor monitor IDs for a self-owned product, or pass an empty list to clear its mappings. Ensures every competitor ID belongs to the current user before writing.

Instructions

设置某自营商品的竞品映射。注意：这是覆盖式写入，会替换该自营商品原有的全部映射。

用户可能的问法：

"把这两个竞品挂到我的商品下面"
"我的商品对标竞品 101、102、103"
"清空这个商品的竞品映射"

参数：

self_owned_monitor_id: 自营商品监控 ID
competitor_monitor_ids: 竞品监控 ID 列表；传空列表表示清空映射

所有竞品 ID 必须属于当前用户，否则整次写入被拒绝（不会部分生效）。

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`self_owned_monitor_id`	Yes
`competitor_monitor_ids`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Nov 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses overwrite semantics (replaces all existing mappings), the empty-list clear operation, the ownership precondition, and atomic rejection with no partial writes. These are exactly the traits an agent needs before calling a destructive mutation.

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 overwrite warning is front-loaded and the param list is compact. The example-phrasings block is somewhat verbose but earns its place by aiding intent matching; overall structure is clean with no filler.

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 2-parameter mutation with no annotations, the definition covers purpose, parameters, destructive scope, and failure mode. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described; nothing necessary is missing.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates by defining both parameters, including the non-obvious empty-list-equals-clear semantics that the schema's array type does not convey. This adds real meaning beyond the input schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: setting the competitor mapping for one self-owned product. An agent knows exactly what mutation occurs. It does not name the read counterpart (get_competitor_mapping) to differentiate, which keeps it from a 5.

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 'user phrasings' block gives concrete triggers (attach competitors, map against IDs 101/102/103, clear all mappings), which maps natural-language intent to this tool. There is no explicit when-not or alternative routing, so it falls short of a 5.

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