Skip to main content
Glama

Ebook File Check

ebook_compare

Read-only

Runs the identical pinned EPUBCheck 5.3.0 validation over exactly two EPUB builds (directly hosted public URLs or files attached in chat, baseline first, revised second) sequentially under one shared 110-second deadline, then reports which spec findings regressed or were fixed between them. Returns per-build hashes, EPUB versions, pass verdicts and severity counts, a regressions list (rules that appear or worsen in the revised build) and a fixed list (rules removed or reduced), and a ranking by pass state then fewer blocking findings. Use for 'did my re-export get worse', 'which build has fewer problems', and revision-over-revision questions. The ranking orders automated conformance only (it never means one build renders, reads, or sells better), and when both builds tie on pass state and blocking count it names no winner rather than crowning the first submission. It also flags when the two files declare different titles, since that usually means they are not two builds of one book. Human review remains required for both builds. A comparison can take up to 110 seconds under its shared deadline; tell the user before the call.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlsNoExactly two distinct direct public HTTP(S) EPUB URLs: the baseline build first, the revised build second. Provide either these URLs or files, never both. STRICT RULE: Ebook compare failed: provide either two EPUB URLs or two attached EPUB files, not both STRICT RULE: Ebook compare failed: provide two public EPUB URLs or attach two EPUB build files
filesNoExactly two distinct EPUB builds attached in chat: the baseline build first, the revised build second. Provide either these attachments or urls, never both.
maxMessagesNoMaximum findings to collect per build for the comparison (default 150)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fixedYesRules removed or reduced in the revised build versus the baseline
limitsYesConclusions this automated comparison cannot support
rankingYesBuilds ranked by pass state then fewer blocking findings; unvalidatable builds last
documentsYesPer-build hashes, versions, and verdicts in submitted order (baseline first, revised second)
nonclaimsYesWhat these automated results do not establish
truncatedYesTrue when either build's findings were truncated, which can make the difference table incomplete
comparedAtYesISO timestamp of the comparison
regressionsYesRules that appear or worsen in the revised build versus the baseline
processingMsYesTotal processing time in milliseconds
engineVersionYesEPUBCheck engine version that produced the verdicts
ruleProfileDateYesRelease date of the pinned EPUBCheck rule profile
humanReviewItemsYesChecks only a qualified human can perform
humanReviewRequiredYesAlways true: automated conformance never covers how either build reads or renders

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), it discloses the 110-second shared deadline, sequential execution, ranking semantics ('never means one build renders, reads, or sells better'), tie behavior ('names no winner'), title-mismatch flagging, and the need to warn the user before the call. This is rich behavioral disclosure that annotations don't provide.

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?

Information-dense and front-loaded with the core function before caveats, and nearly every clause adds value. The 110-second deadline is mentioned twice, a minor redundancy, but the structure remains clear and purposeful.

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?

For a tool that already has an output schema, the description still supplies input ordering, time expectations, ranking caveats, tie behavior, title-mismatch flagging, and human-review requirements. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly or interpret results 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents urls, files, and maxMessages with types, constraints, and ordering rules. The description only restates the baseline/revised ordering already in the schema without adding new parameter-level meaning, which matches the 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 ('runs') and resource (EPUBCheck 5.3.0 validation over exactly two EPUB builds) and clearly frames the deliverable: reporting which spec findings regressed or were fixed between builds. This distinguishes it from the sibling single-build checker without needing to inspect the schema.

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?

Explicitly lists the exact questions it answers ('did my re-export get worse', 'which build has fewer problems') and conditions like 'revision-over-revision questions', giving clear context. However, it never names the sibling tool or states when not to use it, so it stops just short of a full when/when-not/alternatives treatment.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources