agentswitchboard

Alternatives To

alternatives_to

Read-onlyIdempotent

Listings that could stand in for one listing, strongest first, as on its /agents//alternatives page. Each alternative is in the listing's main category, offers at least one of its access methods, and overlaps on what it does (shared skills and tags, rarer ones counting for more). Each comes with why: the access methods both offer and what they have in common. Up to 8. Fewer, or none, rather than a weak match. Also returns a link comparing the listing with its top two alternatives.

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": {
      "slug": "<slug>"
    },
    "name": "alternatives_to"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`slug`	Yes	Agent slug, e.g. "deepgram"
`limit`	No	Most alternatives to return (1–8, default 8)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	Its alternatives page; null when it has too few for one
`agent`	Yes
`basis`	Yes	What every alternative has in common with the listing
`total`	Yes	How many alternatives it has, up to 8
`compareUrl`	Yes	The listing side by side with its top two alternatives
`alternatives`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedNov 2, 2026

removedOutput schema / properties / agent / properties / featured

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Featured: set only by the maintainer. With no search text, results list featured listings first, then A→Z; with search text, results are ranked by relevance and equal scores keep that featured-first order.",
-  "type": "boolean"
-}

changedOutput schema / properties / agent / required

Previous value: -[
-  "name",
-  "slug",
-  "url",
-  "iconUrl",
-  "description",
-  "provider",
-  "categories",
-  "accessMethods",
-  "verified",
-  "official",
-  "featured",
-  "authType"
-]New value: +[
+  "name",
+  "slug",
+  "url",
+  "iconUrl",
+  "description",
+  "provider",
+  "categories",
+  "accessMethods",
+  "verified",
+  "official",
+  "authType"
+]

removedOutput schema / properties / alternatives / items / properties / featured
```
Removed value: -{
-  "$ref": "#/properties/agent/properties/featured"
-}
```

changedOutput schema / properties / alternatives / items / required

Previous value: -[
-  "name",
-  "slug",
-  "url",
-  "iconUrl",
-  "description",
-  "provider",
-  "categories",
-  "accessMethods",
-  "verified",
-  "official",
-  "featured",
-  "authType",
-  "sharedAccess",
-  "inCommon",
-  "why"
-]New value: +[
+  "name",
+  "slug",
+  "url",
+  "iconUrl",
+  "description",
+  "provider",
+  "categories",
+  "accessMethods",
+  "verified",
+  "official",
+  "authType",
+  "sharedAccess",
+  "inCommon",
+  "why"
+]

AddedNov 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds real substance on top: ranking logic, matching criteria, the 8-item ceiling, and what accompanies each result ('why' plus a comparison link). It stops short of describing behavior for edge cases such as an unknown or unpublished slug.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by qualification criteria and return contents. The matching-criteria sentence is dense but each clause carries distinct information; nothing is padding.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't enumerate return fields, yet it still signals what each result contains and that a comparison link comes back. Combined with annotations covering safety and a fully documented schema, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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%, so slug format and the 1–8 limit range are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the ceiling with 'up to 8' but adds no new meaning about how limit interacts with ranking or the weak-match cutoff, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a precise verb-and-resource statement: listings that could stand in for a given listing, ranked strongest first. The framing ('could stand in for one listing') is semantically distinct from siblings like compare_agents or get_agent, so an agent can identify the right tool without opening any schema.

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?

The qualification rules are explicit: same main category, at least one shared access method, overlap on skills and tags with rarer ones weighted more. It also sets a behavioral expectation ('fewer, or none, rather than a weak match'), but it never names an alternative tool or states when not to call this one.

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

All agentswitchboard 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.