Footprint

Compare 2 to 4 areas side by side

footprint_compare_areas

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare 2 to 4 areas in India side by side: price today, price outlook, building growth, how built-up, govt. rates.

Use for "Whitefield vs Gachibowli", "compare these three villages". Returns a table with one column per area and a link to each area's page. Prices are labelled by kind; a city-wide average is marked and is not comparable with a govt. rate. Names take the best search match: for villages with common names, find coordinates with footprint_search_places first and pass 'lat,lon'.

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": {
      "places": "<places>"
    },
    "name": "footprint_compare_areas"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`places`	Yes	2 to 4 places. Each is a name ('Whitefield Bengaluru') or coordinates as 'lat,lon' ('12.9698,77.7499').

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, it discloses return shape (table with one column per area plus a link to each area's page) and an important interpretation caveat: prices are labelled by kind and a city-wide average is marked as not comparable with a govt. rate. It also reveals the name-resolution behavior (best search match), which explains silent mis-resolution risk.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and comparison dimensions, then examples, then return/caveat notes. Three short blocks, no filler; minor awkwardness from hard line breaks mid-sentence and a slightly buried caveat about city-wide averages.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of explaining returns and does so (table layout, per-area column, link, price labelling). Combined with the disambiguation guidance, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is already 100% for the single 'places' array, yet the description adds real meaning: entries are resolved by best search match, and ambiguous village names should be replaced with 'lat,lon' coordinates obtained from footprint_search_places. It doesn't restate the 2-4 bound or array format, but the schema covers that.

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 (2-4 areas in India) and enumerates exactly what is compared: price today, price outlook, building growth, built-up share, govt. rates. The multi-area comparison scope is distinguishable from the sibling single-area lookup (footprint_get_area) and discovery (footprint_search_places) tools.

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?

Gives concrete trigger examples ('Whitefield vs Gachibowli', 'compare these three villages') and an explicit routing rule: for villages with common names, geocode with footprint_search_places first and pass 'lat,lon'. It stops short of stating the negative case (a single area should use footprint_get_area), so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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

All Footprint tools Inspect

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

Need Help?