Skip to main content
Glama

references_compare

Compare ready preview/reference fidelity with measured scores.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "workspace": "<workspace>",
      "build_id": "<build_id>",
      "max_awt": "<max_awt>",
      "idempotency_key": "<idempotency_key>"
    },
    "name": "references_compare"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathsNo
cursorNo
dry_runNo
max_awtYes
build_idYes
viewportsNo
workspaceYes
wait_secondsNo
idempotency_keyYes
reference_pack_idNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare not-read-only, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds almost no behavioral context beyond the title: it does not explain side effects, what idempotency_key protects, what dry_run does, or whether comparisons are stored.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The single sentence is front-loaded and concise, but for a ten-parameter mutation tool it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. Brevity here removes necessary context instead of eliminating waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity, mutation-related annotation, ten parameters, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It leaves essential input semantics and operational behavior unexplained.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for ten undocumented parameters. It does not explain max_awt, paths, viewports, cursor, wait_seconds, dry_run, idempotency_key, reference_pack_id, workspace, or build_id in any meaningful way.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a compare operation over preview/reference fidelity with measured scores, which gives a rough purpose. However, 'ready preview/reference fidelity' is ambiguous, and it does not distinguish this tool from nearby siblings such as preview_get, preview_screenshot, or references_ingest.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The word 'ready' hints at a precondition but does not explain what readiness means or how to satisfy it.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources