compare_toolsThe same facts as get_tool for 2 to 5 tools side by side.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"domains": "<domains>"
},
"name": "compare_tools"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domains | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results mirror get_tool's facts presented side by side, but says nothing about ordering, alignment of fields, or what happens to missing/unknown tools.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One front-loaded sentence with no filler, though its brevity borders on under-specification given the undocumented parameter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations explaining return shape, the description should clarify what 'side by side' yields and what a domain string is. It leaves both an agent's output expectation and its argument construction unresolved.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the single parameter. It mentions the 2-5 cardinality (which merely repeats minItems/maxItems) but never clarifies that the argument is an array of 'domains' strings or what those strings should contain, leaving a naming mismatch between 'tools' in the description and 'domains' in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific operation (compare 2 to 5 tools side by side) and anchors the output to the known get_tool facts, so an agent can distinguish it from the singular get_tool. It falls short of 5 because the purpose depends on the agent already knowing what get_tool returns.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The '2 to 5 tools' bound implies the multi-tool case and thus implicitly routes single-tool lookups to get_tool, but the alternative is never named and no when-not guidance is given. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.