Geo-Parity

Compare measured internet quality by country

compare_connectivity

Read-onlyIdempotent

Measured connection quality per country from Cloudflare Radar: median download and upload (Mbps), median idle latency and jitter (ms), and a call-quality verdict derived from latency and jitter rather than bandwidth — a video call fails on latency and jitter long before it fails on throughput, which is why a download figure alone cannot answer “can I work from here”. Aggregated from real connections over a 28-day window, not crowdsourced or self-reported. Coverage is wider than the site's country pages (~200 locations), so this answers for places with no page here. A country Radar has too little data for is absent, never zero.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sort`	No	Metric to rank by. Bandwidth sorts high-to-low; latency and jitter sort low-to-high, because “better” runs in opposite directions.	download
`limit`	No	Return at most this many countries.
`maxLatency`	No	Filter: maximum median idle latency, ms (e.g. 100).
`minDownload`	No	Filter: minimum median download, Mbps (e.g. 50).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	No
`rows`	No
`sort`	No
`updated`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 1, 2026

addedInput schema / examples

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "maxLatency": 100,
+    "sort": "latency"
+  }
+]

First observedSep 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes well beyond them: provenance (real connections, not crowdsourced or self-reported), time window (28-day aggregation), coverage breadth, and a crucial null-semantics rule — 'a country Radar has too little data for is absent, never zero'. That absence rule is exactly the kind of behavior an agent cannot infer from annotations or schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the resource and metric list, and every sentence carries information — the 28-day window, the coverage claim, and the absent-never-zero rule all earn their place. It is a dense single run-on paragraph rather than clearly segmented, which costs it the top mark.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained; the description instead covers the things structured fields cannot — data provenance, aggregation window, coverage limits, and null handling. Required parameters are zero and defaults are schema-documented, so nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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%, including the sort-direction caveat and filter examples, so the parameters are fully documented without the prose. The description adds conceptual framing (why the call-quality verdict exists) but no syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond what the schema already supplies — baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — measured connection quality per country — and enumerates the exact metrics returned (median download/upload Mbps, idle latency, jitter, call-quality verdict), with the data source named (Cloudflare Radar). No sibling in the compare_* family covers connectivity, so the agent can place it unambiguously.

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?

Gives a clear decision context — this is the tool that answers 'can I work from here', where latency/jitter matter more than bandwidth — and points out that coverage exceeds the site's country pages (~200 locations), implicitly routing users who find no country page. It does not, however, explicitly name an alternative or state when not to use it.

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

All Geo-Parity 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?