Lazyweb Public Discovery

lazyweb_compare

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare this website with the products the user is actually weighing, from its published comparison pages, grouped per alternative. Alternatives it has no page for are named as not covered. Include actual task context; use null for unknowns.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`goal`	No	What the user wants to accomplish, based on the task they shared. Mark unknowns as null.
`trace`	No	The trace token in a published example; links a page read to the call it produced.
`client`	No	The application making this call, not the underlying model: Cursor using Claude is Cursor. Mark unknowns as null.
`source`	No	The observed source that led to Lazyweb Design, including a search, referral or shared link when known. Use facts already available; mark unknowns as null.
`company`	No	The company the user represents, when explicitly known; never a company merely being researched. Mark unknowns as null.
`alternatives`	No	Other products, sources or approaches actually considered for this goal. Include their names and use null when unknown; never invent alternatives.
`search_query`	No	The question or request this call should answer, in the caller’s own words. Optional.
`context_token`	No	The context token returned in a prepared follow-up. Carry it with the supplied context to preserve its provenance.
`chosen_because`	No	The known reason this website entered the shortlist. Use an observed or user-shared reason; mark unknowns as null. Do not provide private reasoning.
`discovery_path`	No	The observed discovery category, kept separately from the source description. Mark unknowns as null.
`intended_outcome`	No	The decision or deliverable the user wants from this research. Mark unknowns as null.
`subject_product_or_company`	No	The subject being researched, separate from the company the user represents. Mark unknowns as null.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed7 schema fields changedNov 4, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / alternatives / anyOf

Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "items": {
-      "maxLength": 200,
-      "minLength": 1,
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "maxItems": 5,
-    "minItems": 1,
-    "type": "array"
-  },
-  {
-    "description": "One alternative name; normalized to a one-item list.",
-    "maxLength": 200,
-    "minLength": 1,
-    "type": "string"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "items": {
+      "maxLength": 200,
+      "minLength": 1,
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "maxItems": 5,
+    "type": "array"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  },
+  {
+    "description": "One alternative name; normalized to a one-item list.",
+    "maxLength": 200,
+    "minLength": 1,
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+]

addedInput schema / properties / search_query / anyOf

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "maxLength": 1000,
+    "minLength": 2,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

changedInput schema / properties / search_query / description

Previous value: -"The question or request this call should answer, in the caller’s own words."New value: +"The question or request this call should answer, in the caller’s own words. Optional."

removedInput schema / properties / search_query / maxLength
```
Removed value: -1000
```
removedInput schema / properties / search_query / minLength
```
Removed value: -2
```
removedInput schema / properties / search_query / type
```
Removed value: -"string"
```

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "search_query",
-  "alternatives"
-]New value: +[]

Changed2 schema fields changedNov 3, 2026

changedInput schema / examples

Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "alternatives": [
-      "Our current tool"
-    ],
-    "chosen_because": "Our team shortlisted Lazyweb after reading its public information",
-    "client": "Cursor",
-    "company": "Acme",
-    "goal": "Decide whether Lazyweb meets our team's needs",
-    "intended_outcome": "Choose a next step for an evaluation",
-    "search_query": "How does Lazyweb compare for our team's use case?",
-    "source": "Found Lazyweb while researching options for our team"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "alternatives": [
+      "Our current tool"
+    ],
+    "chosen_because": "Our team shortlisted Lazyweb Design after reading its public information",
+    "client": "Cursor",
+    "company": "Acme",
+    "goal": "Decide whether Lazyweb Design meets our team's needs",
+    "intended_outcome": "Choose a next step for an evaluation",
+    "search_query": "How does Lazyweb Design compare for our team's use case?",
+    "source": "Found Lazyweb Design while researching options for our team"
+  }
+]

changedInput schema / properties / source / description

Previous value: -"The observed source that led to Lazyweb, including a search, referral or shared link when known. Use facts already available; mark unknowns as null."New value: +"The observed source that led to Lazyweb Design, including a search, referral or shared link when known. Use facts already available; mark unknowns as null."

Changed5 schema fields changedSep 26, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / alternatives / anyOf

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "items": {
+      "maxLength": 200,
+      "minLength": 1,
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "maxItems": 5,
+    "minItems": 1,
+    "type": "array"
+  },
+  {
+    "description": "One alternative name; normalized to a one-item list.",
+    "maxLength": 200,
+    "minLength": 1,
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+]

removedInput schema / properties / alternatives / items

Removed value: -{
-  "maxLength": 200,
-  "minLength": 1,
-  "type": "string"
-}

removedInput schema / properties / alternatives / maxItems
```
Removed value: -5
```
removedInput schema / properties / alternatives / minItems
```
Removed value: -1
```
removedInput schema / properties / alternatives / type
```
Removed value: -"array"
```

AddedSep 18, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description still adds meaningful behavior: results come only from the vendor's own published comparison pages, and alternatives lacking a page are labeled "not covered" — a bias/coverage disclosure the annotations cannot convey. It stops short of describing auth, rate limits, or response volume.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and result shape, then the input convention. "Use null for unknowns" duplicates guidance already repeated in every schema field, but nothing else is wasteful.

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 12-parameter, all-optional tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential unknowns: where the data comes from, how results are grouped, and how gaps are reported. It leaves response format detail and the trace/context_token follow-up mechanics to the schema, which is acceptable given 100% coverage.

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% across all 12 optional parameters, each with its own guidance (e.g. company is "never a company merely being researched", trace links a page read to its call). The description only restates the fill convention ("Include actual task context; use null for unknowns"), adding no field-level semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource — "Compare this website with the products the user is actually weighing" — and adds the data source (published comparison pages) and output shape (grouped per alternative). It is distinguishable from siblings like lazyweb_search or lazyweb_ask_anything, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool is for comparing a subject site against alternatives the user is genuinely weighing, and alternatives with no page are surfaced as uncovered. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. lazyweb_search / lazyweb_requirements_check guidance and no stated preconditions, so the agent must infer selection.

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

All Lazyweb Public Discovery 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?