Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Citehound

by io.github.andacuzel
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Compare two sites

compare_sites
Read-only

Scans two domains — one after the other, not in parallel — and reports both scores plus every check where they differ. Useful for comparing your site against a named competitor.

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": {
      "domain_a": "<domain_a>",
      "domain_b": "<domain_b>"
    },
    "name": "compare_sites"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domain_aYesThe first bare domain, e.g. "example.com".
domain_bYesThe second bare domain, e.g. "competitor.com". Must differ from domain_a.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, open-world, and non-idempotent. The description earns additional credit by disclosing that the two scans run sequentially, not in parallel, which sets expectations for latency and explains why the call is not idempotent. It does not mention cost, timeouts, or rate limits for a two-scan operation.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the critical behavioral trait (sequential scanning) front-loaded and the output shape stated immediately after. Every clause carries information.

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 usefully states what is returned (both scores plus differing checks). It omits expected runtime and any cost/pagination implications of running two full scans sequentially, which would matter for an expensive open-world operation.

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 with format examples and the 'must differ' constraint. The description only adds that domain_b is typically a competitor, which is marginal added meaning; baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the work.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (scans) and resource (two domains) and what it returns: both scores plus every differing check. It implicitly contrasts with run-twice scanning but never names the sibling scan_site, so an agent must infer the relationship from the sibling list.

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 a clear use case — 'comparing your site against a named competitor' — which signals when this beats a single-site scan. It stops short of explicit exclusions (e.g., 'use scan_site for one domain') or prerequisites, so it is clear context without routing rules.

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

All Citehound toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources