compare_serversSide-by-side context tokens, security, freshness and stars for 2-5 servers.
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": {
"slugs": "<slugs>"
},
"name": "compare_servers"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slugs | 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 safety is covered and the description needn't restate it. The description usefully enumerates what gets compared, but says nothing about output shape, behavior on unknown slugs, or whether comparisons are cached — modest added value over annotations.
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?
A single sentence with every word earning its place; the compared dimensions come first and the cardinality constraint closes it. No filler, no restatement of the title.
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?
For a one-parameter, annotated, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the compared dimensions and input cardinality but leaves the return structure and invalid-slug behavior unspecified. Adequate to call it, not quite enough to predict its output confidently.
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 description coverage is 0% for the single 'slugs' parameter, so the description must compensate: '2-5 servers' confirms the count semantics (the schema enforces minItems 2 / maxItems 5). However it never explains what a slug is or where to obtain one — presumably from search_servers — leaving the parameter's sourcing ambiguous.
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 names the resource (servers) and enumerates the exact comparison dimensions — context tokens, security, freshness, stars — which lets an agent distinguish it from get_server and search_servers at a glance. The verb 'compare' is only implied via the title, but the side-by-side framing makes the multi-server intent unambiguous.
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 2-5 server range implies 'use this when you have several servers to weigh against each other,' but neither sibling is named as an alternative nor is the when-not case stated (e.g., use get_server for a single server's full details). Usage is inferable rather than instructed.
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.