Compare two or more providers side by side (all their plans), cheapest plans first per provider.
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": {
"brands": "<brands>"
},
"name": "compare_providers"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| brands | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It does disclose two useful behavioral traits: that all plans are included and that plans are sorted cheapest first per provider. However, it does not describe the return format, pagination behavior, or explicitly state that the operation is read-only.
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?
The description is a single well-structured sentence that leads with the primary action and resource, then adds scoping and ordering details. Every phrase adds value and there is no filler or redundant information.
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?
The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), so the description covers the core purpose and sorting behavior. Still, with no output schema and no annotations, the lack of any return-value description makes it less complete than it could be for an agent trying to predict the tool's exact result shape.
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% and the only parameter, 'brands', has no description. The tool description adds that 'brands' identify providers and implies at least two are needed, but it does not clarify whether these are names, IDs, slugs, or exact values. This only partially compensates for the missing schema documentation.
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 uses a specific verb ('Compare') and resource ('providers'), and adds important scope details: 'two or more', 'all their plans', and 'cheapest plans first per provider.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_providers, get_provider, and list_providers.
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 description implies when to use this tool—whenever providers need to be compared—but it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool should be used instead for other tasks. There are no named alternatives or exclusions.
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.