Interbang

Compare rounds

compare_rounds

Read-only

Compares two rounds of the same UT — per-use-case and per-task success-rate, duration, and rating deltas, plus how problems and bugs moved (fixed / new / persisting) between rounds. Pass the later round as utId; against defaults to the round utId was cloned from (its previous round). Use it when asked to compare rounds or see what changed across iterations.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`utId`	Yes	The (usually later) round to compare.
`against`	No	The other round's UT id. Defaults to the round utId was cloned from (its previous round).

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool's non-destructive nature is known. The description adds behavioral context about the default resolution of `against` (previous round) and the constraint that both rounds must be of the same UT. It does not disclose side effects or preconditions beyond what annotations and schema imply.

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?

The description is two sentences: first defines the action and output, second gives parameter guidance. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundant information.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description compensates by enumerating the comparison dimensions (per-use-case/per-task, deltas, problem/bug movement). It also explains the default behavior of `against` and the usage trigger. It does not cover edge cases like missing previous round, but the core information for an agent to select and invoke the tool is present.

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 descriptions already cover both parameters with 100% coverage, including the 'usually later' convention and default behavior. The description essentially repeats the schema for `against` and adds only the contextual note that both rounds must be from the same UT, which is a minor enhancement.

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 defines the action as 'Compares two rounds of the same UT' and enumerates specific metrics (success-rate, duration, rating deltas) and problem/bug movement. It distinguishes this from siblings by focusing on comparisons across rounds and using the term 'iterations'.

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 an explicit trigger: 'Use it when asked to compare rounds or see what changed across iterations.' It also clarifies parameter usage (pass later round as utId, against defaults to previous round). However, it does not name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions.

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

All Interbang 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

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a distinct resource and action. Even get_ut, which returns comprehensive data, doesn't replace the specialized get_session, get_transcript, or get_quantitative_report for detailed views. No two tools have overlapping purposes.

Naming Consistency4/5

All names follow a verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., add_task, get_ut, list_workspaces). The main inconsistency is using 'create' for UTs (create_ut) but 'add' for child entities (add_use_case, add_task), and having a separate update_scenario instead of folding it into update_ut, but the convention is still predictable.

Tool Count4/5

With 18 tools, the set is slightly above the typical 3-15 well-scoped range, but the domain of usability testing requires distinct operations for drafting (use cases, tasks, scenario), reading results (reports, sessions, transcripts), and comparison. Each tool has a clear role, so the count feels reasonable rather than excessive.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the core lifecycle: create, read, update, and delete for tasks/use cases, plus comprehensive retrieval of results and notes. Minor gaps include no delete_ut (UTs cannot be removed) and no explicit status change or cloning mechanism, but these are likely intentional app-side actions, so the surface is not severely incomplete.

Resources

Need Help?