Skip to main content
Glama
nyku

Competiflow MCP Server

by nyku
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Update competitor

update_competitor
Idempotent

Set a competitor's check cadence or pause/resume all its monitors while preserving history; change a single monitor separately.

Instructions

Set the check cadence or pause/resume every monitor of one competitor. History is kept. To change a single monitor, use update_monitor; for a whole workspace, use update_workspace.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusNoactive runs checks; paused stops checks and keeps history
cadenceNoCheck frequency. Faster cadences use more monthly checks; plans set a minimum (422 cadence_not_allowed).
competitor_idYesCompetitor id from list_competitors or add_competitor

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.1.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / cadence / description
      Added value: +"Check frequency. Faster cadences use more monthly checks; plans set a minimum (422 cadence_not_allowed)."
    • addedInput schema / properties / competitor_id / description
      Added value: +"Competitor id from list_competitors or add_competitor"
    • addedInput schema / properties / status / description
      Added value: +"active runs checks; paused stops checks and keeps history"
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that the effect fans out across every monitor of the competitor and that 'History is kept', which is useful context for the pause path. It doesn't mention the plan/cadence constraint (422 cadence_not_allowed), but the schema does, so the gap is small.

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?

Three short sentences, scope stated first, sibling routing second, and no filler. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 tool with 3 parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description supplies what the schema cannot: the bulk scope over monitors, history retention, and the sibling routing rules. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and both enums are documented inline, including the cadence billing/minimum-plan caveat. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 first sentence states a specific verb (set/pause/resume), the exact resource (every monitor of one competitor), and the two mutable fields (cadence, status). It distinguishes itself from update_monitor and update_workspace by naming both, so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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 states the boundary cases: 'To change a single monitor, use update_monitor; for a whole workspace, use update_workspace.' Both alternatives and the conditions that select them are spelled out.

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