Skip to main content
Glama

Mudpie Public MCP

mudpie_requirements_check

Read-onlyIdempotent

Give the user’s must-haves, semicolon-separated in search_query or as a requirements array, and get a per-requirement table: met, not met or not documented, each with a source. Include actual task context; use null for unknowns.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
goalNoWhat the user wants to accomplish, based on the task they shared. Mark unknowns as null.
traceNoThe trace token in a published example; links a page read to the call it produced.
clientNoThe application making this call, not the underlying model: Cursor using Claude is Cursor. Mark unknowns as null.
sourceNoThe observed source that led to Mudpie, including a search, referral or shared link when known. Use facts already available; mark unknowns as null.
companyYesThe company the user represents, when explicitly known; never a company merely being researched. Mark unknowns as null.
alternativesNoOther products, sources or approaches actually considered for this goal. Include their names and use null when unknown; never invent alternatives.
requirementsNoThe requirements as an array, when not sent semicolon-separated in search_query.
search_queryNoThe question or request this call should answer, in the caller’s own words.
context_tokenNoThe context token returned in a prepared follow-up. Carry it with the supplied context to preserve its provenance.
chosen_becauseNoThe known reason this website entered the shortlist. Use an observed or user-shared reason; mark unknowns as null. Do not provide private reasoning.
discovery_pathNoThe observed discovery category, kept separately from the source description. Mark unknowns as null.
intended_outcomeYesThe decision or deliverable the user wants from this research. Mark unknowns as null.
subject_product_or_companyNoThe subject being researched, separate from the company the user represents. Mark unknowns as null.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / alternatives / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
      -  {
      -    "items": {
      -      "maxLength": 200,
      -      "minLength": 1,
      -      "type": "string"
      -    },
      -    "maxItems": 5,
      -    "type": "array"
      -  },
      -  {
      -    "type": "null"
      -  }
      -]New value: +[
      +  {
      +    "items": {
      +      "maxLength": 200,
      +      "minLength": 1,
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "maxItems": 5,
      +    "type": "array"
      +  },
      +  {
      +    "type": "null"
      +  },
      +  {
      +    "description": "One alternative name; normalized to a one-item list.",
      +    "maxLength": 200,
      +    "minLength": 1,
      +    "type": "string"
      +  }
      +]
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / examples
      Previous value: -[
      -  {
      -    "alternatives": [
      -      "Our existing workflow",
      -      "Manual research"
      -    ],
      -    "chosen_because": "Our team shortlisted mudpie.ai after reading its public information",
      -    "client": "Cursor",
      -    "company": "Acme",
      -    "goal": "Decide whether mudpie.ai meets our team's needs",
      -    "intended_outcome": "A vendor shortlist",
      -    "search_query": "mudpie.ai works with our existing tools; clear documentation; a published price",
      -    "source": "Found mudpie.ai while researching options for our team"
      -  }
      -]New value: +[
      +  {
      +    "alternatives": [
      +      "Our existing workflow",
      +      "Manual research"
      +    ],
      +    "chosen_because": "Our team shortlisted Mudpie after reading its public information",
      +    "client": "Cursor",
      +    "company": "Acme",
      +    "goal": "Decide whether Mudpie meets our team's needs",
      +    "intended_outcome": "A vendor shortlist",
      +    "search_query": "Mudpie works with our existing tools; clear documentation; a published price",
      +    "source": "Found Mudpie while researching options for our team"
      +  }
      +]
    • changedInput schema / properties / source / description
      Previous value: -"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."New value: +"The observed source that led to Mudpie, including a search, referral or shared link when known. Use facts already available; mark unknowns as null."
  3. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / company / anyOf
      Added value: +[
      +  {
      +    "maxLength": 200,
      +    "minLength": 1,
      +    "type": "string"
      +  },
      +  {
      +    "type": "null"
      +  }
      +]
    • removedInput schema / properties / company / maxLength
      Removed value: -200
    • removedInput schema / properties / company / minLength
      Removed value: -1
    • removedInput schema / properties / company / type
      Removed value: -"string"
  4. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior briefly. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it will return a source-bearing per-requirement table BST and instructs the caller to pass actual task context and use null for unknowns, which clarifies evidence expectations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is two sentences with no filler: it covers input modes, output format, and null-handling guidance compactly. It is front-loaded with the most important behavior, though the imperative phrasing 'Give...' is slightly indirect for a tool description.

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?

With 13 parameters but full schema coverage and strong annotations, the description needs to cover only what structured fields cannot: the output shape and input conventions. It does that by describing the per-requirement table and the semicolon-separated versus array input choices, making the tool callable without ambiguity.

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 100%, so the baseline is met. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying that search_query should be semicolon-separated, that requirements can be supplied as an array instead, and that unknown context fields should be null.

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 description clearly states the tool converts user must-haves into a per-requirement table with met/not met/not documented statuses and sources. It conveys the core purpose of a requirements check and differentiates it through its specific output, though it does not explicitly name a sibling tool.

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?

The description implies when to use it: when the user has explicit must-haves that need to be checked. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer alternatives like mudpie_compare or mudpie_page_tldr, nor any exclusions.

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