eatmundo

Compare two dishes

compare_dishes

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare two dishes ingredient by ingredient: shared items, what is unique to each, a match score, and - for the 848 pairs that have one - an editorial comparison paragraph in the requested language. Works for any two dishes in the corpus, whether or not they are an edge in the equivalence graph.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`a`	Yes	First dish: slug or name.
`b`	Yes	Second dish: slug or name.
`lang`	No	Language for titles, ingredient names and URLs.	en

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`a`	Yes
`b`	Yes
`notes`	Yes
`score`	Yes
`only_a`	Yes
`only_b`	Yes
`paragraph`	Yes
`same_form`	Yes
`attribution`	Yes
`compare_url`	Yes
`score_basis`	Yes
`stored_score`	Yes
`is_graph_edge`	Yes
`below_threshold`	Yes
`excluded_generics`	Yes	Pantry staples deliberately excluded from BOTH the score and the ingredient lists above, because they match almost everything (flour/water/oil/salt/yeast for food, water/salt/sugar for drinks). They are present in the dishes - they are just not evidence of similarity.
`shared_ingredients`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 10, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / excluded_generics

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Pantry staples deliberately excluded from BOTH the score and the ingredient lists above, because they match almost everything (flour/water/oil/salt/yeast for food, water/salt/sugar for drinks). They are present in the dishes - they are just not evidence of similarity.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "a",
-  "b",
-  "score",
-  "score_basis",
-  "is_graph_edge",
-  "stored_score",
-  "below_threshold",
-  "same_form",
-  "shared_ingredients",
-  "only_a",
-  "only_b",
-  "paragraph",
-  "compare_url",
-  "notes",
-  "attribution"
-]New value: +[
+  "a",
+  "b",
+  "score",
+  "score_basis",
+  "is_graph_edge",
+  "stored_score",
+  "below_threshold",
+  "same_form",
+  "shared_ingredients",
+  "only_a",
+  "only_b",
+  "excluded_generics",
+  "paragraph",
+  "compare_url",
+  "notes",
+  "attribution"
+]

First observedSep 10, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description only needs to add behavioral color: it lists the exact comparison facets, mentions that only 848 pairs have the editorial paragraph, and notes the language parameter. This adds meaning beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the verb, resource, and output list; the second clarifies scope with an exact note about the equivalence graph and the 848-pair limitation. Every clause earns its place.

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?

Along with a 100%-covered schema and an output schema, the description is effectively complete for invocation: the input semantics are covered, the result is described, and the nonzero-analytics caveat is disclosed. A minor gap is not explaining behavior when a dish is not found, but that is not central to selecting and invoking 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%, so the parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds a small amount of semantics by mentioning 'in the requested language,' which maps to lang, but does not meaningfully extend the meaning of the a or b parameters. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action ('Compare two dishes ingredient by ingredient') and lists concrete outputs: shared items, unique items, match score, and an optional editorial paragraph in the requested language. It also distinguishes itself from the likely alternative find_similar_dishes by noting it works for any two dishes in the corpus, regardless of the equivalence graph.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description clearly implies the use case, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over siblings like find_similar_dishes, search_dishes, or get_recipe. It explains that it covers arbitrary pairs, so an agent can infer the main scenario, but there are no when-not-to-use or alternative-routing directions.

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

All eatmundo tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?