Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Git.Top

by io.github.haocn-ops
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

compare_projects

Read-only

Compare projects by deployment, maintenance, difficulty, Cloudflare readiness, and use case fit.

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": {
      "project_ids": "<project_ids>"
    },
    "name": "compare_projects"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
criteriaNo
deploymentNo
require_d1NoFail closed unless the tool result is backed by D1 instead of seed fallback.
project_idsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the readOnly and non-destructive annotations. It does not disclose the D1/seed fallback behavior hinted at by the require_d1 parameter, nor does it explain what 'compare' returns in terms of output format or data source. The annotations cover safety but not these operational nuances.

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 sentence, front-loaded, and contains no filler. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it concise and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has no output schema, and the description does not explain what the comparison result looks like (e.g., ranking, side-by-side table). It also omits information about data fallback and alternative usage contexts. Given the 4-parameter complexity, the description is too minimal to be considered complete.

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?

With only 25% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by listing the comparison dimensions, which likely map to the 'criteria' parameter. However, it does not clarify the 'deployment' string parameter or other parameters beyond what is in the schema. It adds some semantic value but leaves gaps.

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 clearly states the verb 'Compare' and the resource 'projects', and lists specific comparison dimensions (deployment, maintenance, difficulty, Cloudflare readiness, use case fit). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_project (single retrieval) and search_projects (finding projects).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage when you need to compare projects across those criteria, but it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives. It lacks explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, so it falls into the implied usage category.

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

All Git.Top 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