get_competitorRetrieve one competitor with its monitors and discovery fields, then poll discovery_status after adding it until discovery completes or fails.
Get one competitor with its monitors and discovery fields. Use it to poll discovery after add_competitor until discovery_status is completed or failed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| competitor_id | Yes | Competitor id from list_competitors or add_competitor |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Input schema / properties / competitor_id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Competitor id"New value: +"Competitor id from list_competitors or add_competitor"v0.1.0Does 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 useful context beyond that: the response embeds monitors and discovery fields, and the tool is intended to be polled repeatedly until a terminal status. It stops short of stating what a pending status looks like or whether polling is rate-limited.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the operational instruction. No redundant restatement of the tool name or schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the embedded monitors and discovery fields plus the discovery_status terminal values. What the discovery fields actually contain is left implicit, a minor gap for a read tool with full annotation coverage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema already stating the id comes from list_competitors or add_competitor. The description adds no format or type detail on top of that, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ("Get one competitor") and discloses the payload composition (monitors and discovery fields), which implicitly contrasts with the sibling list_competitors. An agent can tell immediately this is a single-record read that returns nested data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Gives an explicit workflow: use after add_competitor and poll until discovery_status is completed or failed. That is concrete when-to-use guidance tied to a sibling. It does not cover the plain lookup case versus list_competitors, which keeps it 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.