Skip to main content
Glama

remodeleriq

by io.github.gustavoatar

remodeleriq_compare_bids

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare 2–5 contractor bids for the same project side-by-side. Returns: per-bid confidence scores; a per-trade cost comparison table sorted by price variance; a scope-gap matrix (what Bid A includes that Bid B omits); apples-to-apples adjusted totals (normalizing for scope gaps); outlier detection (trades priced ≥2× or ≤0.5× the median); consolidated red flags across all bids; and a winner recommendation. Use when a homeowner has multiple quotes and wants to know which is best and why.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bidsYes2–5 contractor bids to compare side-by-side.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bidsYes
_metaNo
winnerNo
all_flagsNoAll critical and high-severity flags across every bid.
bid_countYes
scope_gapsYesTrades present in some bids but absent from others, with estimated gap value.
outlier_flagsNoTrades where one bid is ≥2× or ≤0.5× the median.
cost_comparisonYesPer-trade cost table sorted by price variance (largest gap first).
apples_to_applesYesStated total + scope adjustment = adjusted comparable total per bid.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral specifics: outlier detection thresholds (≥2× or ≤0.5× median), scope-gap normalization, and consolidated red flags, giving an agent a concrete picture of the analysis performed without contradicting annotations.

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 dense sentence with semicolon-separated outputs followed by a one-sentence usage guide. Every clause adds information about what the tool returns or when to use it, with no filler or repetition.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the action, input constraints, detailed outputs, and the intended use case. It leaves little ambiguity about when to invoke it or what will happen, making it contextually complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already covers the bids parameter with 100% coverage, including minItems/maxItems and property descriptions. The description adds the key constraint that bids must be for the same project—not present in the schema description—and references scope-depth normalization, enriching the meaning of the scope_depth field.

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 'Compare 2–5 contractor bids for the same project side-by-side', providing a specific verb and resource. It then enumerates analytical outputs (confidence scores, scope-gap matrix, outlier detection, winner recommendation) that clearly distinguish it from simpler sibling tools like compare_bids.

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 description explicitly states 'Use when a homeowner has multiple quotes and wants to know which is best and why', giving clear when-to-use context. However, it does not mention alternative tools or when not to use, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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

All remodeleriq toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The deprecated tools are near-identical duplicates of the new prefixed tools, creating significant overlap. An agent could easily call analyze_bid instead of remodeleriq_analyze_bid, leading to confusion despite the deprecation notes.

Naming Consistency2/5

Two naming patterns coexist: the older unprefixed verbs (analyze_bid, get_cost_estimate) and the newer prefixed verbs (remodeleriq_analyze_bid). This inconsistency is minor on its own but combined with the duplicates it creates a jarring mix.

Tool Count3/5

The raw count of 6 is reasonable, but 3 tools are deprecated duplicates, so the effective unique toolset is only 3. This feels padded and slightly wasteful, though not egregious.

Completeness4/5

The three core functions—bid analysis, cost estimates, and labor rates—cover the primary homeowner needs for remodeling transparency. No obvious lifecycle gaps exist since this is a read/analyze API rather than a CRUD system.

Resources