Compare two MCP servers
compare_serversCompare two MCP servers side by side: trust, transport, tools, install, and links.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| a | Yes | First server slug | |
| b | Yes | Second server slug |
MCPExplorer
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It does not state the tool is read-only, nor any side effects. 'Compare' implies read-only but not explicit.
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?
Single sentence that is front-loaded and contains only essential information with no redundancy.
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?
Adequate for a comparison tool with two simple parameters. Lists comparison aspects. Could mention return format but not required with no output schema.
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 descriptions for both parameters are present and sufficient ('First server slug', 'Second server slug'). Description adds no extra detail, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
Description clearly states it compares two MCP servers and lists the comparison dimensions (trust, transport, tools, install, links). Distinct from sibling tools like 'get_server' (single server) and 'search_servers'.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Implicitly for side-by-side comparison. Does not distinguish from sibling 'get_alternatives'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct operation: checking trust, comparing servers, generating configs, fetching records, listing capabilities or loadouts, searching, planning, and reporting. No two tools overlap in purpose; even similar verbs like 'get' and 'list' are applied to different resources.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., check_trust, get_server, list_capabilities). The verbs are specific and descriptive, and the nouns clearly indicate the target resource or action.
Tool Count5/5
14 tools is well-scoped for a server that indexes and evaluates MCP servers. The number is sufficient to cover core operations (retrieval, comparison, configuration, planning, reporting) without being overwhelming or redundant.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface covers all essential interactions: exploring servers, capabilities, loadouts, and stats; comparing and trusting; generating configs; planning toolkits; and reporting issues. The domain is fully served with no obvious missing capabilities.