Skip to main content
Glama

decisionmatrix-mcp

by io.github.inity13

compare_two

Direct head-to-head comparison of exactly two options. Returns the winner, the score margin, how many criteria each option wins, and a per-criterion breakdown of who each criterion favours. Pass option_a and option_b (names) or a 2-element options array, plus criteria and scores.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
methodNoweighted_sum
scoresYesScore matrix. Object form: {"Option A": {"Criterion 1": 8, ...}, ...}. Array form: [{"option":"Option A","scores":{...}}]. Or inline scores on each option object.
optionsNoNamed alternatives. Strings ["A","B"] or objects [{"name":"A","scores":{...}}].
criteriaYesWeighted criteria. Each: {name, weight (relative, >=0), direction: 'benefit' (higher better, default) | 'cost' (lower better)}.
option_aNo
option_bNo

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return contract: winner, score margin, criteria win counts, and per-criterion breakdown. This goes beyond a simple 'compares two options' and gives the agent a clear picture of what to expect. It does not discuss edge cases or method-specific behavior, but the core output transparency is solid.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the comparison purpose and output details, then concise input instructions. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what it returns, and how to supply inputs. It omits details about the method parameter and direction field, but those are well-documented in the schema. The description is suitably complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 50%, so the description needs to compensate. It clarifies the alternative ways to pass options: 'option_a and option_b (names) or a 2-element options array, plus criteria and scores.' This adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema. It doesn't explain the method parameter, but the schema provides enum values; overall, it sufficiently disambiguates the input formats.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: 'Direct head-to-head comparison of exactly two options.' It also enumerates specific outputs (winner, score margin, criteria wins, per-criterion breakdown). The phrase 'exactly two options' distinguishes it from sibling tools like score_options, which handle multiple options.

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 clearly states the scope: 'exactly two options,' which implies it should be used for pairwise comparison, not for multiple options. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., 'use score_options for more than two'), so it falls short of a 5, but the context is unmistakable.

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

All decisionmatrix-mcp 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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: compare_two is specifically for two-option head-to-head, create_decision is the main ranking tool with explanation, score_options returns the scored matrix without narrative, and sensitivity_analysis tests weight robustness. Health check and list_methods serve auxiliary but separate roles. No two tools are likely to be confused.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (create_decision, list_methods, score_options, compare_two), but sensitivity_analysis is a noun phrase without a verb, and compare_two uses a number instead of a noun. The snake_case style is consistent throughout, making the set readable overall.

Tool Count5/5

With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for its decision-analysis purpose. Each tool covers a distinct aspect of the workflow: creation, pairwise comparison, scoring, sensitivity analysis, and method discovery. The count feels neither sparse nor bloated.

Completeness5/5

The tool set provides comprehensive coverage of multi-criteria decision making: creating a full decision, comparing exactly two options, scoring without the narrative, and testing robustness. Including list_methods for methodology details and health_check for server status rounds out the surface. No significant gaps are apparent for the stated domain.

Resources