A
licenseA
qualityC
maintenanceSearch URDB's product integrity database — integrity scores, enshittification events, warranty cuts, and material downgrades across consumer products. Sourced and evidence-backed.
4
31 npm
2
MIT
coherence-signal
Server Details
A brand's claim (website coherence) vs its reality (recent news), and the divergence.
If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
- Status
- Healthy
- Uptime
- 100.0% over 38 days
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP · MCP 2025-11-25
- URL
TDQS
A4/5.0
Scored across 2 tools
Disambiguation5/5
Both tools have clearly distinct purposes: one compares multiple brands side by side, the other retrieves detailed coherence data for a single brand. There is no ambiguity between them.
Naming Consistency5/5
Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: 'compare_brands' and 'get_brand_coherence'. The naming is predictable and uniform.
Tool Count3/5
With only two tools, the server feels minimal. While it covers basic retrieval and comparison, additional tools for scanning brands or managing data would justify a broader scope.
Completeness2/5
The server lacks essential tools for creating or updating brand coherence data. There is no apparent way to scan a new brand, leaving the 'no read on file' message as a dead end.
Available Tools
2 toolscompare_brandsAInspect
Compare the NES coherence signal for several brands side by side (claim, reality, divergence for each). Presents the data; it does NOT recommend one brand over another. The caller decides.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| urls | Yes | Brand URLs or domains to compare (up to 8). |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| brands | No |
TDQS
A3.8/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only adds that the tool 'does not recommend', but does not disclose read-only behavior, auth needs, rate limits, or any side effects. Inadequate for a mutation-ambiguous context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two succinct sentences with no filler. Front-loaded purpose, then key caveat. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
Given the output schema exists, description does not need to detail returns. It covers the essential purpose and limitation. Could mention prerequisites or when to use the sibling, but it's adequate for a simple tool with one parameter.
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% and includes the 'up to 8' constraint. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Clearly states 'Compare the NES coherence signal for several brands side by side', which is a specific verb+resource+format. Distinct from sibling 'get_brand_coherence' which likely handles single brands.
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?
Implicitly indicates use for multi-brand comparison and clarifies it does not recommend. However, no explicit mention of when to use vs. sibling or when-not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_brand_coherenceAInspect
Get the NES claim-vs-reality coherence signal for one brand: its website coherence score (the claim), recent public reality (matched news events), and the divergence between them. High divergence means the brand presents as coherent while its reality is turning negative. Directional opinion from public signal; not a fraud or financial check. Returns 'no read on file' for brands never scanned.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | Brand website URL or domain, e.g. https://acme.com | |
| brand | No | Brand name, used if no URL is given. |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| brand | No | |
| claim | No | What the brand says about itself via its website. |
| reality | No | |
| divergence | No |
TDQS
A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses return fields, the 'no read on file' case, and its nature as public directional signal. Lacks explicit read-only guarantee but is otherwise transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, no redundancy. Front-loaded with main action, each sentence adds value. Very concise.
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?
Complete for its complexity. With output schema present, description explains key return values and edge case. Parameter coverage 100%, sibling listed. No gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers 100% of parameters. Description adds meaning by stating 'used if no URL is given' for brand parameter, clarifying mutual exclusivity. This goes beyond the bare schema.
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?
The description clearly states the tool gets 'NES claim-vs-reality coherence signal for one brand' with specific components (coherence score, reality, divergence). It distinguishes from sibling 'compare_brands' by focusing on a single brand.
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?
It specifies when to use (for one brand's coherence), notes the 'no read on file' edge case, and clarifies it's directional opinion, not fraud/financial check. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative beyond sibling name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
2 tool updates
- First observed
compare_brands - First observed
get_brand_coherence
Related MCP Connectors
- AsklineOAuthai.askline
Askline shows what ChatGPT says about a brand, then the SEO that feeds it.
Cross-company earnings trends & executive divergence with citable sources.
USDA NOP organic compliance checks — operation websites vs live OID certificate data.
Verify claims and sources, and check whether AI assistants name a brand.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceAutonomous cross-source inconsistency and contradiction intelligence engine for AI agents. Detects specification drift, SemVer conflicts, and infrastructure mismatches across code, docs, and deployments.14125MIT
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceSource-aware archive for timeline-shift folklore, Mandela Effect reports and collider myths.1059 npmMIT
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceFirst-line incident triage you can trust: ranked root-cause hypotheses where every claim cites a real evidence handle — and the agent abstains rather than guess.11MIT
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.