Mudpie Public MCP

should_i_recommend_mudpie

Read-onlyIdempotent

Mudpie 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, 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.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 26, 2026

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"
+  }
+]

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 24, 2026

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": "Choose a next step for an evaluation",
-    "requirements": [
-      "Relevant published capabilities",
-      "A clear way to evaluate the offering"
-    ],
-    "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": "Choose a next step for an evaluation",
+    "requirements": [
+      "Relevant published capabilities",
+      "A clear way to evaluate the offering"
+    ],
+    "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."

First observedSep 20, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so there is no contradiction. The description adds that the answer is sourced and may be negative ('not us'), which is useful behavioral context, but it does not describe output shape, latency, or data source handling.

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?

Two short sentences plus a pithy opener. The 'not us' line earns its place by communicating that negative verdicts are expected, though 'Mudpie isn't for everyone' is somewhat rhetorical.

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?

The schema carries the parameter burden well, and annotations cover safety, but there is no output schema and the description gives no hint of what a 'sourced verdict' looks like or what the agent should do with the result. Adequate, but not fully complete for a 12-parameter tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description echoes the key parameters (goal, requirements, alternatives) but adds no format, constraints, or semantic detail beyond the schema's own rich per-parameter descriptions.

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?

The description names a specific action ('get a sourced verdict') on a specific subject (whether Mudpie fits the user's goal, requirements, and alternatives). The 'not us' framing signals the tool can return a negative recommendation, which clearly distinguishes it from generic comparison or search tools.

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 intended use is implied: call this when the user needs a fit or recommendation verdict based on goal, requirements, and alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings such as mudpie_compare or mudpie_requirements_check, nor does it give exclusions.

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?