Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

CrunchJunkie

by io.crunchjunkie.app
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

compare_site_audits

Read-only

What changed between a client's SEO audit crawl (default the latest) and the previous crawl of the same scope it was compared with: per issue the pages new, fixed (re-checked and passing), persisting, on newly checked pages and not re-checked, with sample URLs; or why the two are not comparable (then no new / fixed numbers exist). Definitions arrive in note.

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": {
      "clientId": "<clientId>"
    },
    "name": "compare_site_audits"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
crawlIdNoA finished crawl. Default: the latest that ran to the end.
clientIdYesClient id (from list_clients).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world, so safety needs no restating. The description adds real behavioral substance beyond them: the default to the latest completed crawl, the fact that a non-comparable outcome yields no new/fixed numbers, and that per-issue definitions are returned in a `note` field.

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 front-loaded sentence answers 'what changed' first, then qualifies the non-comparable case, then points to `note` for definitions. It is dense and slightly clause-heavy but contains no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so adequately: issue categories, sample URLs, the `note` definitions, and the no-numbers non-comparable case. Minor gaps remain around result size/pagination, but nothing that would cause a wrong call.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented there, including the crawlId default, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description contributes only the implicit detail that the baseline crawl is the prior crawl of the same scope, which is useful but marginal.

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?

Opens with a concrete question the tool answers ('What changed between a client's SEO audit crawl ... and the previous crawl of the same scope') and enumerates the per-issue categories it returns. This is clearly distinct from siblings like get_site_audit_history or get_site_audit_issue, which return single-crawl data rather than a diff.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied strongly by the framing (comparing two crawls of the same scope, defaulting to the latest), and it notes the non-comparable case. However, it never names an alternative tool or states when to prefer a plain history/insights call instead of a comparison, so the agent must infer routing.

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

All CrunchJunkie 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