Skip to main content
Glama

cityparity — Cost-of-Living & Quality-of-Life Comparison

by com.cityparity

Rank cities by composite quality score

rank_cities
Read-onlyIdempotent

Rank supported cities by composite quality-of-life score across five weighted dimensions (financial, healthcare, vacation, childcare, safety_net). Returns top N (default 10), with filters for country, countries, region (europe/asia/north_america/south_america/oceania), has_universal_healthcare, include_cities, and exclude_cities. Use this to shortlist across many cities; for a head-to-head between two named cities use compare_cities. The same scenario is applied to every city so scores are directly comparable (default: single person, 2BR rent, $100k USD-equivalent gross). Read-only, no side effects; returns a text summary plus structured JSON.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax results to return. Default 10.
filterNoRestrict which cities are ranked, by country, region, universal-healthcare flag, or explicit include/exclude slug lists. Omit to rank all supported cities.
weightsNoOverride the composite-score weights. Defaults: financial 30, healthcare 20, vacation 15, childcare 15, safety_net 20.
scenarioNoOverride the default ranking scenario. The same scenario is applied to every city so scores are comparable.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rankedYes
skippedYes
weightsYes
consideredYes
scenario_usedYes
methodology_urlYes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by stating 'The same scenario is applied to every city so scores are directly comparable' and disclosing the return format as 'a text summary plus structured JSON.' No contradiction; these traits are consistent with read-only behavior.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the central action, and every sentence contributes either purpose, usage, or return format. No fluff.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 top-level params, nested objects) and the presence of a full output schema, the description covers the essential context: ranking logic, filtering, scenario comparability, defaults, and return shape. It is complete enough for an agent to select and exercise the tool correctly.

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 merely lists filter names and default values already present in the schema; it does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and scope: 'Rank supported cities by composite quality-of-life score across five weighted dimensions'. It also lists the two main use cases and explicitly contrasts with compare_cities, making the tool's purpose crisp and distinct from siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly says 'Use this to shortlist across many cities; for a head-to-head between two named cities use compare_cities,' which is a clear when-to-use and alternative. It also names the filter dimensions, giving context on how to narrow the ranking.

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

All cityparity — Cost-of-Living & Quality-of-Life Comparison toolsInspect
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

A4.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool serves a distinct purpose: listing cities, summarizing one city, comparing two, ranking many, looking up tax regimes, and batch safety nets. Descriptions explicitly guide when to use each, eliminating ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., compare_cities, get_city_summary). The verbs are appropriate for the action, and there is no mixing of conventions.

Tool Count5/5

With 6 tools, the count is well-scoped for a cost-of-living comparison server. It covers essential operations without being too few or too many, fitting the typical 3-15 range.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers discovery, summary, comparison, ranking, tax regimes, and safety nets. A minor gap is the lack of a detailed single-city cost breakdown (only headline costs in get_city_summary), but overall it's fairly complete.

Resources