Compare catalog tools
compare_toolsRead-onlyIdempotent
Compare up to 5 ecosystem tools side-by-side (capabilities, trust dimensions, usage).
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids_or_slugs | Yes |
404.directory
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- Added
TDQS
A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context about side-by-side comparison across specified dimensions and the 5-tool limit, but it does not disclose return format, ordering, or error behavior.
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?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the action and target, with no filler. The parenthetical list of comparison dimensions is compact and informative.
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 simple compare tool with strong annotations and one self-explanatory parameter, the description covers the core selection concept. There is no output schema, so a bit more detail about what the comparison returns would improve completeness, but the tool is still usable as-is.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the ids_or_slugs parameter beyond 'up to 5 ecosystem tools.' It fails to mention that at least two identifiers are required or what formats are accepted, relying on the parameter's self-explanatory name.
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 uses a specific verb ('Compare') and identifies the resource ('up to 5 ecosystem tools') along with the comparison aspects (capabilities, trust dimensions, usage). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_tool (single tool retrieval) and recommend_tools (recommendation).
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternative tools are named. The intended use is only implied: comparing multiple catalog tools side by side rather than retrieving a single tool or getting a recommendation.
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.
TDQS
A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Tools are mostly distinct with clear descriptions. Potential overlap exists among search_tools, recommend_tools, list_capabilities, and get_capability_graph, but each serves a different purpose (query vs. recommendation vs. high-level list vs. relational graph). inspect_tool_server vs. get_tool (server vs. tool) and verify_web vs. understand_webpage (reachability vs. content) are clearly separated. Minor ambiguity between list_capabilities and get_capability_graph, but descriptions clarify.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., compare_tools, get_tool, search_tools, verify_web). No mixing of camelCase or inconsistent styles. The naming is uniform and predictable.
Tool Count5/5
12 tools is within the ideal 3-15 range and appropriate for a directory service that provides search, retrieval, comparison, recommendation, inspection, invocation, and web verification. The count is comprehensive without being overwhelming, and each tool adds distinct value.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers core directory operations (search, get, compare, recommend) and additional utilities (inspect, invoke, trust score, capability graph). It lacks a direct 'list all tools' or 'list all servers' endpoint, but search_tools and list_capabilities can approximate this. The inclusion of web verification and understanding tools extends beyond the catalog domain, but they are useful adjuncts. Overall, the surface is well-rounded with minor gaps.