Skip to main content
Glama

Tick Mark Books

Compare two listings

compare_listings
Read-onlyIdempotent

Two tools side by side, as markdown: taglines, pricing, API availability, tags — the researched compare facts, honest about unknowns.

Tool call template

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": {
      "a": "<a>",
      "b": "<b>"
    },
    "name": "compare_listings"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
aYesFirst listing slug.
bYesSecond listing slug.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: the output medium (markdown), the structure (side-by-side with named sections), and the 'honest about unknowns' behavior when data is missing.

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?

A single compact sentence with the output format front-loaded and the compared fields enumerated efficiently; no filler. The clipped 'Two tools side by side' fragment leaves the subject (listings) to be inferred from the title.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return shape (markdown, per-dimension comparison) and annotation-covered safety. Minor gaps remain around error behavior for invalid or identical slugs.

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?

Both parameters are fully documented in the schema (100% coverage) as listing slugs, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about the a/b parameters, such as ordering, whether they must differ, or behavior on an unknown slug.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description makes clear it produces a side-by-side comparison of two listings rendered as markdown, listing the compared dimensions (taglines, pricing, API availability, tags). It implies a contrast with the single-listing siblings but never names get_listing or explains the boundary explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No statement of when to use this versus calling get_listing twice, nor any preconditions (do both slugs need to exist? must they be the same category?). Usage is only inferable from the name and 'compare facts' phrasing.

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