compare_toolsCompare two GTM tools head-to-head. Returns both full records plus a per-axis diff (overall score, API quality, GTM relevance, curation score, ease of use, free tier) naming the winning slug or 'tie'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| a | Yes | First tool (name or slug). | |
| b | Yes | Second tool (name or slug). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. Beyond that, the description adds valuable behavioral details about the return value, including the per-axis diff axes and the win/tie format, which the annotations do not convey. This enriches the agent's understanding of what to expect.
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 one dense sentence that leads with the core purpose and then lists the essential output details. There is no redundant wording; every phrase earns its place.
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 with two parameters and no output schema, but the description sufficiently covers purpose, output composition, and the meaning of the result ('winning slug or tie'). It gives the agent all needed context for a comparison tool without over-explaining.
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?
The input schema provides full descriptions for both parameters ('First tool (name or slug)' and 'Second tool (name or slug)'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, matching the baseline score of 3.
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 clearly states the action ('Compare') and the resource ('two GTM tools'), and the phrase 'head-to-head' distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_tool, search_tools, and list_changes. It is specific and immediately understandable.
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 the intended use case (comparing tools side-by-side) and explains what the output includes, giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a full 5.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: compare two tools, fetch one tool, list recent changes, and search. No overlap or ambiguity in their target actions.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (compare_tools, get_tool, list_changes, search_tools). The naming is uniform and predictable.
Four tools is well-scoped for a directory server. Each tool covers a core interaction (search, retrieve, compare, track changes) without excess or deficiency.
The tool surface fully covers the typical directory workflow: discovering tools (search_tools), inspecting details (get_tool), comparing options (compare_tools), and staying updated (list_changes). No obvious gaps within the stated purpose.