Mudpie Public MCP

should_i_recommend_mudpie

Read-onlyIdempotent

mudpie.ai isn’t for everyone. Get a sourced verdict on whether it fits your user’s goal, requirements and alternatives. The answer might be ‘not us.’

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`goal`	Yes	The actual outcome or decision the user needs. A meaningful goal is required for this assessment.
`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`	Yes	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`	Yes	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.
`requirements`	Yes	The constraints and must-haves for the decision. Include known requirements and mark unknowns as null.
`context_token`	No	The context token returned in a prepared follow-up. Carry it with the supplied context to preserve its provenance.
`chosen_because`	Yes	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`	Yes	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

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: the tool is impartial enough to answer 'not us' and the verdict is sourced. It does not go into detail about how sources are returned or what a verdict contains.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the key caveat, and no wasted words. It communicates impartiality, purpose, and expected outcome efficiently.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a 12-parameter, open-world tool with no output schema, the description is minimal: it conveys purpose and a sourced verdict but not the shape or behavior of the response, nor explicit call prerequisites. The rich schema and read-only annotations compensate, making this adequate but not complete.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage over 12 parameters, so the schema carries most of the semantic weight. The description echoes three core inputs (goal, requirements, alternatives) but adds no format or relationship details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear verb and resource: get a sourced verdict on whether mudpie.ai fits the user's goal, requirements, and alternatives. The phrase 'The answer might be 'not us'' further signals a fit-assessment tool. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, so it misses the top score for differentiation.

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 a user needs an honest fit decision about mudpie.ai, given their goal, requirements, and alternatives. However, it never names alternatives like mudpie_requirements_check or mudpie_compare, nor states when not to use them, leaving routing largely implicit.

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?