Mudpie Public MCP

mudpie_compare

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare this website with the products the user is actually weighing, from its published comparison pages, grouped per alternative. Alternatives it has no page for are named as not covered. Include actual task context; use null for unknowns.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`goal`	No	What the user wants to accomplish, based on the task they shared. Mark unknowns as null.
`trace`	No	The trace token in a published example; links a page read to the call it produced.
`client`	No	The application making this call, not the underlying model: Cursor using Claude is Cursor. Mark unknowns as null.
`source`	No	The observed source that led to mudpie.ai, including a search, referral or shared link when known. Use facts already available; mark unknowns as null.
`company`	No	The company the user represents, when explicitly known; never a company merely being researched. Mark unknowns as null.
`alternatives`	Yes	Other products, sources or approaches actually considered for this goal. Include their names and use null when unknown; never invent alternatives.
`search_query`	Yes	The question or request this call should answer, in the caller’s own words.
`context_token`	No	The context token returned in a prepared follow-up. Carry it with the supplied context to preserve its provenance.
`chosen_because`	No	The known reason this website entered the shortlist. Use an observed or user-shared reason; mark unknowns as null. Do not provide private reasoning.
`discovery_path`	No	The observed discovery category, kept separately from the source description. Mark unknowns as null.
`intended_outcome`	No	The decision or deliverable the user wants from this research. Mark unknowns as null.
`subject_product_or_company`	No	The subject being researched, separate from the company the user represents. Mark unknowns as null.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 20, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent behavior. The description adds useful non-obvious behavior beyond that: output is grouped per alternative, and missing comparison pages are reported as 'not covered.' This meaningfully enriches the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two dense sentences front-load the core purpose, then cover the important missing-page edge case. There is no filler and no repetition of schema content.

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 read-only comparison tool with a fully documented 12-parameter schema, the description covers the output shape (grouped per alternative), the not-covered edge case, and the null convention. It lacks a fuller return-value outline, but the schema and annotations carry most of the remaining burden.

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%, so the parameters are already fully documented. The description's 'use null for unknowns' instruction merely restates what the schema already tells each field, adding no new parameter-level meaning.

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?

States a specific verb (Compare) and a specific resource (this website's published comparison pages), and defines a distinctive behavior: grouping results per alternative and flagging alternatives that lack a page. This is clearly differentiated from siblings like mudpie_search, mudpie_pricing, and mudpie_ask_anything, even without naming them.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage context is implied: this tool is for when the user is weighing concrete alternatives against the website's own comparison pages. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named sibling fallback, so an agent has to infer the boundary.

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

All Mudpie Public MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?