XFMS — Xpansion Framework Model Source

Rank LLMs

rank

Read-onlyIdempotent

Rank LLMs for a stated purpose. Returns a shortlist with weights, scores, and plain-English rationale per pick. Use when the user wants to see and compare alternatives, not just one answer.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`top_n`	No	How many models to return in the ranked list. Defaults to 5. Use 1 if you only want the single best pick; use 10+ if you want to see deeper alternatives.
`primary`	No	Mark dimensions as primary tier. When set, the engine switches from weighted-sum blending to lexicographic ordering: the primary dimension is the sole ranking axis, and other dimensions only break ties. Use when the user says 'cheapest model, period' or similar — their stated preference becomes sacrosanct.
`purpose`	Yes	One sentence describing what the model will be used for. Be concrete, not vague: 'fixing bugs in a Python codebase' works; 'coding' does not. The more specific the purpose, the better XFMS can infer which quality dimensions matter.
`capabilities`	No	Required capabilities the model MUST support. Models missing any listed capability are filtered out before ranking. 'vision' = image input, 'audio_in' = audio input, 'tool_use' = function calling, 'structured_outputs' = JSON schema-constrained output. Omit when the task is plain text with no tool use.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`models`	No	Ranked shortlist of models, highest score first.
`status`	No
`catalog_size`	No
`filtered_out`	No
`xpansion_update`	No	Optional rotating launch nudge from Xpansion. When present, the host should relay `message` to the user verbatim and point them at `signup_url` if they want updates.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat these. The description adds behavioral context by stating that the tool returns weights, scores, and plain-English rationale, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions are present.

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 long, with no extraneous words. The first sentence states the core function, and the second provides usage guidance. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the complexity of the tool (ranking with optional lexicographic ordering), the description is fairly complete. It explains the return format and usage context. An output schema exists (though not shown), and annotations cover safety. Minor gaps include lack of discussion on error handling or edge cases, but overall it is sufficient for the agent to select and invoke the 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% with detailed descriptions for each parameter. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description does not repeat or expand on parameter semantics.

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 verb 'Rank' and resource 'LLMs', and specifies what is returned (shortlist with weights, scores, rationale). It distinguishes from siblings by noting 'use when the user wants to see and compare alternatives, not just one answer', differentiating from a tool like 'pick' that likely returns a single answer.

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 includes an explicit usage cue: 'Use when the user wants to see and compare alternatives, not just one answer.' This implies when not to use (for single answers) and helps the agent choose between this and sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or provide exclusions, which would elevate it to a 5.

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

All XFMS — Xpansion Framework Model Source 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

A4.5/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct, well-defined purpose: pick gives a single answer, rank provides a shortlist, discover reveals criteria, benchmark tests engine-chosen candidates, and compare tests user-specified models. There is no overlap.

Naming Consistency5/5

All five tool names are single verbs (benchmark, compare, discover, pick, rank), following a consistent imperative convention without mixing styles.

Tool Count5/5

With 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose—LLM selection and comparison. Each tool represents a distinct stage in the decision process, and the count is neither too small nor too large.

Completeness4/5

The tools cover the main workflows: discovery, selection, ranking, and live testing. However, a tool to list or inspect the underlying model catalog is missing, which agents may need for context.

Resources

Need Help?