Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Hlido Agent Reviews

by eu.hlido
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

compare_agents

Read-only

Head-to-head trust comparison of 2-5 Hlido-reviewed agents. Returns each agent's Laddoo score, tier, dimension scores, and key claim verdicts side by side so you can pick the most trustworthy option for a task. Use this once you've shortlisted candidates (via find_trusted, find_similar_agents, or recommend) and need a direct comparison.

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": {
      "slugs": "<slugs>"
    },
    "name": "compare_agents"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugsYesList of 2 to 5 Hlido agent slugs to compare side by side (e.g. ['aider','cursor','opencode']).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / slugs / description
      Added value: +"List of 2 to 5 Hlido agent slugs to compare side by side (e.g. ['aider','cursor','opencode'])."
    • addedInput schema / properties / slugs / items / description
      Added value: +"A Hlido agent slug (e.g. 'aider')."
    • addedInput schema / properties / slugs / maxItems
      Added value: +5
    • addedInput schema / properties / slugs / minItems
      Added value: +2
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral value by declaring the scope ('Hlido-reviewed agents') and the exact comparison output (side-by-side scores, tier, dimension scores, claim verdicts), which is useful given no output schema exists.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by output description and usage guidance. No redundancy or filler; every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool, the description covers purpose, scope, return contents, and routing guidance. Since no output schema exists, the explicit enumeration of returned fields compensates fully, leaving nothing an agent needs missing.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'slugs' parameter is fully documented including the 2-5 constraint. The description restates the 2-5 count but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (compare) and resource (Hlido-reviewed agents), scopes it to 2-5 items, and enumerates the returned artifacts (Laddoo score, tier, dimension scores, claim verdicts). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming find_trusted, find_similar_agents, and recommend.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use this 'once you've shortlisted candidates (via find_trusted, find_similar_agents, or recommend) and need a direct comparison.' Both the trigger condition and the alternative tools are named, so the routing decision is unambiguous.

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

All Hlido Agent Reviews toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources