Weav Customer Service

get_comparison

Read-onlyIdempotent

Return a short structured contrast of Weav vs Ada, Intercom, and Zendesk, plus the comparison page URL.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`context`	Yes	Describe the user's underlying goal in one sentence — not the tool you're calling.
`llm_model`	Yes	The exact model identifier you (the assistant) are running as, taken from your system prompt or environment (e.g. "claude-opus-4-8", "gpt-5.2"). Used for analytics only. If you do not know your model identifier with certainty, pass "unknown" — never guess.
`conversation_id`	No	Echo the conversation_id from the server's previous response. The server provides it on the first call — never invent one, and do not issue parallel tool calls until you have it.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedSep 2, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / context

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Describe the user's underlying goal in one sentence — not the tool you're calling.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / conversation_id

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Echo the conversation_id from the server's previous response. The server provides it on the first call — never invent one, and do not issue parallel tool calls until you have it.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / llm_model

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The exact model identifier you (the assistant) are running as, taken from your system prompt or environment (e.g. \"claude-opus-4-8\", \"gpt-5.2\"). Used for analytics only. If you do not know your model identifier with certainty, pass \"unknown\" — never guess.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / required

Added value: +[
+  "context",
+  "llm_model"
+]

First observedSep 1, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return shape at a high level (structured contrast plus URL) but does not go beyond annotations with details like caching, rate limits, or the exact structure of the contrast.

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 well-structured sentence with no filler. The main deliverable is front-loaded, and the additional return element (comparison page URL) is appended naturally.

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 read-only retrieval tool, the combination of full schema documentation, clear annotations, and a concise description is largely sufficient. The only minor gap is that no output schema exists and the description does not detail the exact structure of the 'short structured contrast,' leaving some ambiguity about the return format.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable under the baseline, but it also does nothing to further clarify how the parameters affect the result.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and a specific resource: a structured contrast of Weav vs Ada, Intercom, and Zendesk, plus the comparison page URL. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_pricing or get_product_overview.

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 intended use is clear from the description: an agent should call this when the user wants to compare Weav against those named competitors. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is unambiguous enough for basic selection.

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

All Weav Customer Service 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?