compare_agentsCompare two tracked AI agents side by side: trust scores, grades, runtime capabilities, and an evidence-based verdict.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| a | Yes | ||
| b | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| a | Yes | ||
| b | Yes | ||
| verdict | Yes | ||
| compare_url | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by detailing the output contents (trust scores, grades, runtime capabilities, verdict), which are not in annotations or schema.
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?
Single sentence, no redundancy, directly conveys the tool's purpose and output. Efficiently uses space.
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?
Despite 0% schema parameter coverage, the description lists the main comparison dimensions. An output schema exists (not shown) but description mentions output fields, making it reasonably complete for a comparison tool with clear annotations.
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?
Schema coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions). The description only says 'two tracked AI agents' without specifying format or accepted identifiers for parameters 'a' and 'b'. Minimal guidance beyond the schema's type and title.
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 tool compares two AI agents, listing specific aspects (trust scores, grades, runtime capabilities, verdict). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_agent_trust (single agent) and get_leaderboard (ranking).
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 use when a side-by-side comparison of two agents is needed, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives. No guidance on prerequisites or excluded cases.
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 distinct purpose: agent trust profile, comparison, history, leaderboard, categories, bulk scan, search, and MCP server verification. No overlap in functionality.
All tools use consistent snake_case and verb_noun pattern (e.g., check_agent_trust, verify_mcp_server). No mixing of conventions.
8 tools is well-scoped for a trust-tracking server, covering individual checks, comparisons, history, bulk scanning, and discovery without excess.
The tool surface covers all primary use cases: single agent lookups, comparisons, historical trends, leaderboards, category browsing, bulk scanning, and specific MCP server checks. No obvious gaps.