Skip to main content
Glama

zaira_compare_tools

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare 2-3 developer tools or programming languages side by side. Returns each entry's full Markdown-KV block separated by "===". Alternatives and worksWith are enriched with tagline + agent-readiness for resolved slugs. If any requested slugs are not found, they appear in a trailing "Note: slugs not found: ..." line; the comparison still returns for the ones found.

Examples:

  • Three search engines: {slugs: ["meilisearch-oss", "algolia", "elasticsearch-oss"]}

  • Two ORMs: {slugs: ["drizzle-orm", "prisma"]}

  • Three auth providers: {slugs: ["auth0", "clerk", "keycloak"]}

  • Hosted vs self-hosted for the same vendor: {slugs: ["redis-cloud", "redis-oss"]} — shows deployment trade-off

  • Postgres engine vs hosted offerings: {slugs: ["postgresql", "supabase-cloud", "cockroachdb-cloud"]}

  • Two languages for a CLI: {slugs: ["go", "rust"]}

Edge cases:

  • Cross-category comparisons (e.g., {slugs: ["auth0", "redis-cloud"]}) are allowed but rarely useful. Same-category comparisons answer "which should I pick?" better; cross-category answers "these coexist in my stack" — a compatibility question.

  • Minimum 2 slugs, maximum 3. Four or more is a validation error; for more, run pairs.

  • Invalid or unknown slugs are listed under "slugs not found"; the partial comparison returns for valid ones.

  • Duplicate slugs in the array are deduplicated.

  • A few tools are single entries (no -cloud/-oss split): stripe, auth0, firebase, twilio, openai, pinecone, algolia. Don't pass "stripe-cloud" — it doesn't exist.

Risk: read-only, closed-world, idempotent — no state change possible.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugsYesArray of 2-3 tool slugs to compare. Example: ["supabase", "firebase"]

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Substantial disclosure exists beyond annotations: output framing (Markdown-KV blocks joined by "==="), enrichment of Alternatives/worksWith with tagline + agent-readiness, partial-success semantics with a trailing "slugs not found" note, and duplicate deduplication. The closing "Risk: read-only, closed-world, idempotent" line merely restates the annotations and earns no credit, but the return-behavior detail more than compensates.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the Examples/Edge cases/Risk sections are clearly delineated. Six worked examples plus a risk line that duplicates the annotations is slightly more than the tool needs, but each example demonstrates a distinct comparison pattern (same-category, hosted-vs-self-hosted, vendor triple, language pair).

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining returns, and it does: block format, separator, field enrichment, and partial-failure behavior. Combined with the slug-format caveats, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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% and the schema already enforces the 2-3 range and slug pattern, so baseline is 3. The description adds real value on top: deduplication behavior, invalid-slug handling, and a concrete trap (single-entry products like stripe/auth0 must not be passed as "stripe-cloud").

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 first sentence gives a precise verb ("Compare"), the exact cardinality (2-3), and the resource (developer tools or programming languages), then states the return shape. This implicitly and cleanly separates it from the singular sibling zaira_get_tool. An agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Usage context is unusually rich: same-category vs cross-category comparisons are distinguished with the question each answers, and the 3-slug ceiling comes with the workaround ("run pairs"). It does not, however, name any sibling tool (e.g., use zaira_get_tool for a single entry), so routing within the family is left to inference.

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