Skip to main content
Glama

RightAIChoice — verified AI tool data

by com.rightaichoice

Find verified-alive alternatives to an AI tool

find_alternatives
Read-only

Use this when the user asks what to use instead of a specific AI tool, for its alternatives or competitors, or for a replacement because the tool shut down, got acquired, raised prices, or is unreliable. Returns up to 3 verified-alive alternatives from the same category, each with a one-line description, current health verdict, last-verified date, and pricing model. If the asked-about tool shut down, says so (with the recorded reason) and returns live replacements. Alternatives come from the RightAIChoice verification engine (8,000+ AI tools, every vendor link re-probed on a rolling weekly cycle), ranked by category and identity-tag match — never filler from unrelated categories. The response states whether results are curated matches or a category roll-up. Not for: comparing two named tools (use compare_tools) or checking a single tool's status (use check_tool_status).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toolYesThe AI tool to find alternatives for — product name (e.g. "Jasper") or site slug (e.g. "jasper").

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description reveals specific behaviors beyond the annotations: returns up to 3 verified-alive alternatives, includes health verdict, last-verified date, pricing model, handles shutdown cases with recorded reasons, ranks by category/identity-tag, and states whether results are curated or roll-up. This is rich and consistent with readOnlyHint.

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?

The description is a single well-edited paragraph with every sentence earning its place: usage trigger, output summary, special shutdown behavior, source/rank semantics, output type note, and alternative tools. It is dense but not redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return data. It enumerates what is included (description, health, date, pricing) and explains caveats like 'never filler from unrelated categories.' Very complete for a 1-parameter tool.

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 the input property already explains the accepted values (product name or site slug). The description adds no additional parameter-level details, but the schema's provided description is complete, 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?

The description clearly states the tool finds alternatives to a specific AI tool and gives concrete triggers (shut down, acquired, raised prices, unreliable). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying it returns up to 3 alternatives, not comparisons or status checks.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly says when to use it (user asks alternatives/competitors/replacement) and, crucially, says 'Not for: comparing two named tools (use compare_tools) or checking a single tool's status (use check_tool_status).' This gives direct alternative guidance.

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

All RightAIChoice — verified AI tool data toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Each tool targets a recognizably distinct query type, and the 'Not for' cross-references are unusually explicit, which helps an agent choose correctly. The main ambiguity is between check_tool_status and viability_score, since both mention health, viability, and safety, and check_tool_status also summarizes sentiment and pricing.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most names are clear lowercase snake_case noun phrases, but four tools use a verb-first pattern (check_tool_status, compare_tools, find_alternatives, recommend_tools) and whats_changed is a fragment. The set is readable, but it does not follow one consistent naming convention.

Tool Count5/5

With 10 tools, the server is squarely in the well-scoped range for a data-rich verification domain. Each tool maps to a distinct user question—status, comparison, alternatives, sentiment, pricing, viability, market trends, and change tracking—so none feel redundant.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full range of likely queries: single-tool status, two-tool comparison, alternatives, recommendations, sentiment, pricing, viability, category-level landscape, market mortality, and recent changes. The descriptions also handle edge cases like unknown catalog results explicitly, so there are no obvious dead ends.

Resources