SnowSure — Snow & Ski

Compare ski passes

compare_passes

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare ski passes on price, resort coverage, and value — the tool for "which season pass includes — Epic or Ikon?" (pass resortSlugs=[]). Optionally pass resortSlugs you plan to ski and tripDays to see which pass covers them and whether it beats buying window lift tickets.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`passIds`	No	Passes to compare (default: all). e.g. ["epic-pass","ikon-pass"]
`tripDays`	No	Total days you plan to ski (for the value calc)
`resortSlugs`	No	Resorts you plan to ski — used for coverage scoring
`dailyTicketUsd`	No	Override the assumed window ticket rate (default $185)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`markdown`	No	Human-readable markdown summary of the tool result (may be omitted when structuredContent carries a typed payload; content[0].text always has the prose).

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, which the description aligns with by describing a comparison operation. The description adds behavioral context (e.g., 'which pass covers them and whether it beats buying window lift tickets') beyond annotations, though no detailed edge cases are mentioned.

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 sentences, each earning its place: first states purpose with an example, second provides optional parameter usage. Front-loaded with the most critical information, no filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a tool with 4 optional parameters and an existing output schema, the description adequately explains the core functionality, usage scenario, and how inputs affect outputs. No gaps identified.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by showing how parameters interact in a meaningful example (e.g., passing resortSlugs and tripDays to see coverage and value), which clarifies the intended use beyond the schema's individual 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 clearly states the tool compares ski passes on price, resort coverage, and value. It gives a concrete example ('which season pass includes <resort> — Epic or Ikon?'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like compare_resorts or find_pass_resorts.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear context: 'the tool for...' and instructs to optionally pass resortSlugs and tripDays to get coverage and value analysis. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use alternatives, but the example strongly implies its primary use case.

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

All SnowSure — Snow & Ski tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tool clusters have unclear boundaries: get_resort overlaps with get_resort_info and get_resort_photos, ask_snowdata competes with compare_resorts and the El Niño tools, and get_snow_history / get_season_leaderboard / get_insights cover similar retrospective ground. The descriptions try hard to route agents, but with 45 tools an agent will frequently have to choose between near-equivalent options.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern: get_resort_info, compare_resorts, find_best_powder, book_lodging, save_resort. Minor deviations like ask_snowdata and the very similar get_resort vs get_resort_info names prevent a 5, but overall the naming convention is predictable.

Tool Count2/5

45 tools is well above the 25+ threshold and puts a heavy selection burden on the agent. While the domain is broad, many tools are narrow variations on conditions, history, road data, or trip planning that could be consolidated or exposed as configurable parameters.

Completeness4/5

The toolkit covers an impressively wide lifecycle: resort discovery, photos, live conditions, forecasts, history, comparisons, passes, flights, lodging, road status, alerts, and user saved resorts. Minor gaps exist such as no lift-ticket booking, no lesson/rental booking, and flight search only produces links rather than a booking flow, but agents can generally complete core snow-trip workflows.

Resources

Need Help?