website-search

product_compare_context

Read-onlyIdempotent

Load Lenny Zeltser's comparative analysis framework for evaluating multiple security companies side by side. Returns structured scoring rubric, evaluation dimensions, evidence tiering guidance, and comparison-type-specific instructions. Requires comparative analysis content. This server never requests your product plans and instructs your AI to keep them local—guidelines flow to your AI for local analysis.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`company_count`	Yes	Number of companies being compared (2-10).
`comparison_type`	Yes	Type of comparison. 'competition': direct/adjacent competitors. 'market_segment': companies in same segment. 'portfolio': cohort evaluation.
`include_scoring_rubric`	No	Include the structured 1-5 scoring rubric. Default: true.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: the server never requests product plans and instructs the AI to keep them local, plus guidelines flow locally for analysis. This goes beyond the annotations, though it doesn't detail the exact output format or error conditions.

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, each earning its place: purpose, return values, and privacy behavior. The description is front-loaded with the core action and stays concise without redundant phrasing or repetition of schema details.

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?

Given no output schema, the description lists all return components (rubric, dimensions, evidence tiering, comparison-specific instructions) and covers a crucial behavioral requirement (content must be supplied). It also addresses privacy and local analysis, making it sufficient for an agent to decide and invoke without ambiguity.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for all parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds some semantic link by mentioning 'comparison-type-specific instructions' (relating to comparison_type) and 'structured scoring rubric' (relating to include_scoring_rubric), but it does not delve into parameter syntax or constraints beyond the 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 specifies a clear verb ('Load'), a distinct resource ('Lenny Zeltser's comparative analysis framework'), and a precise purpose ('evaluating multiple security companies side by side'). It also lists what is returned (scoring rubric, evaluation dimensions, evidence tiering guidance), clearly distinguishing it from generic context loaders like product_load_context.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool: when you need a comparison framework for multiple security companies. It mentions 'Requires comparative analysis content,' which sets a precondition. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, leaving a slight gap in direct guidance against sibling tools.

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

All website-search tools Inspect

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

A4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Each tool has a distinct domain prefix (assessment, cti, ir, malware, vuln, product) that makes its purpose clear, and overlapping tools like get_template and get_brief_template are explicitly described as standalone variants. However, the large number of similarly structured tools (get_guidelines, load_context, get_frameworks) across six domains could still cause an agent to reach for the wrong domain's tool without close attention.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow a highly consistent snake_case pattern: domain_get_* (e.g., ir_get_template, cti_get_guidelines), domain_load_context, domain_review_report, and domain_get_cross_server_routes. The few exceptions like product_compare_context and search_zeltser still match the general verb-first or domain-first style, so the overall naming scheme is predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

With 53 tools, the server is far too large for its stated purpose of 'website search.' The vast majority of tools are not about search but rather about writing guidelines, templates, and scoring rubrics for multiple report domains (assessment, CTI, IR, malware, vuln, product) plus an AI defense matrix. The count is inflated by repeating the same set of ~7 tools for six different domains, making it feel bloated and hard to navigate.

Completeness4/5

For the broad coaching/report-writing scope, coverage is thorough: every domain has a template, guidelines, context loader, review criteria, and frameworks, plus generic writing guidance and rating tools. The actual search capability is minimal (search_zeltser, get_article, get_index_info) but adequate for the core task; a notable gap is the lack of a tool to list or browse all articles, which would make discovery easier.

Resources

Need Help?