Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
LeadIntel

LeadIntel

by rushikesheleven
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

compare_businesses

Compare a target business with competitors on website, SEO, security, mobile readiness, social presence, contact access, and reviews to identify strengths, weaknesses, and growth opportunities.

Instructions

    Compare a target business against a list of competitor businesses.

    Benchmarks organizations across critical digital and operational dimensions:
    - Website availability & response time
    - Technical SEO score (0-100)
    - HTTPS/SSL security configuration
    - Mobile viewport readiness
    - Social media footprint (channels active)
    - Contact accessibility (forms, direct email, direct phone)
    - Public reviews and ratings where available

    Outputs:
    - Structured comparison table matrix
    - High-confidence strengths
    - Critical digital weaknesses
    - High-leverage growth opportunities
    - Executive competitive positioning summary

    Args:
        target_business: Dict representing target company. Must include 'name', optional 'website', 'category', 'city'.
        competitor_businesses: List of dicts representing competitor companies to benchmark against.

    Returns:
        Comprehensive competitive intelligence comparison report.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
target_businessYes
competitor_businessesYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the analysis dimensions and delivered artifacts (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, positioning summary). It omits operational traits an agent would want: whether it performs live crawling, expected latency or cost, and any limits on competitor count.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The bulleted dimension list is front-loaded and earns its space, but the Outputs block duplicates a return value already covered by the output schema, and the Args section restates what the schema requires. Some trimming would sharpen it.

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?

For a two-parameter nested-object tool with an output schema, the description gives enough on inputs and analytical scope to call it correctly. What is missing is practical guidance on how many competitors to pass and what depth of object fields are expected.

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 0% and the schema is a bare object with additionalProperties, so the description's note that target_business must include 'name' with optional 'website', 'category', 'city' is genuinely load-bearing. Competitor dict fields are left unspecified, presumably assumed to match the target shape.

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?

The first sentence states a specific verb and resource: benchmarking a target business against a list of competitors. The enumerated dimensions make the scope unambiguous, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like find_competitors or score_lead.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no statement of when to use this versus find_competitors, score_lead, or generate_business_report, and no preconditions (e.g. that competitors must already be identified). Usage is only inferable from the name and the word 'benchmark'.

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