Trusted Vendors

Compare two vendors

compare_vendors

Read-onlyIdempotent

Side-by-side Proven Scores, score inputs and offers for two vendors.

Tool call template

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": {
      "a": "<a>",
      "b": "<b>"
    },
    "name": "compare_vendors"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`a`	Yes	First vendor name or domain.
`b`	Yes	Second vendor name or domain.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds value by enumerating the returned content (scores, score inputs, offers), which is important since no output schema exists. It stops short of describing response shape or behavior when a vendor is unknown.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope ('for two vendors') and the output content are stated immediately. 'Side-by-side' is mildly redundant with the tool name but aids readability.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only comparison tool with no output schema, the description covers what is compared and what is returned, which is the critical missing piece elsewhere. Only failure behavior for unknown vendors is unaddressed, a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters documented as 'vendor name or domain', so the schema already carries the semantics. The description only reinforces that exactly two vendors are compared; it adds no format or resolution details beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the resource (two vendors) and what is produced (side-by-side Proven Scores, score inputs, offers), so the agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It does not explicitly contrast with get_vendor, but the 'two vendors' scope makes the distinction inferable.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool (such as get_vendor for a single lookup) is named. The only usage signal is the implicit requirement of exactly two vendors.

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

All Trusted Vendors 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?