Compare 2 to 4 discs side-by-side, computing exact flight rating deltas and stability spread relative to the primary baseline disc.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| disc_ids | Yes | Array of 2 to 4 disc IDs or slugs to compare |
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It outlines the computation performed (deltas, stability spread) and implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior or return format, though that is less critical for a comparison tool.
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?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the core functionality and the key constraint (2 to 4 discs).
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?
Given there is no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and what it computes. It provides enough context for an agent to decide when to invoke it and what to expect in terms of results (deltas and stability spread).
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?
The schema already describes the disc_ids parameter (array, 2-4 items). The description adds meaningful context by indicating that the primary baseline disc is the first in the array, which is not in the schema. This enhances understanding without redundancy.
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's purpose: comparing 2 to 4 discs and computing flight rating deltas and stability spread. This is distinct from the sibling tools (get_disc, search_discs, find_similar_discs), making its role unambiguous.
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 usage for comparison scenarios but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools. It does not specify when to prefer this over find_similar_discs or search_discs, leaving some inference to the agent.
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 targets a distinct task: search_discs for discovery, get_disc for single-disc details, compare_discs for side-by-side analysis, and find_similar_discs for replacements. There is minimal risk of an agent selecting the wrong tool.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: compare_discs, find_similar_discs, get_disc, search_discs. No mixed conventions or vague verbs.
Four tools is a tight, well-scoped set for a read-only disc golf reference server. Each tool earns its place and there is no redundancy.
The server covers the full reference workflow: search for discs, retrieve details, compare discs, and find similar alternatives. No significant lifecycle gaps exist for a public read-only database.