Find alternatives to a specific tool. Searches for similar tools and compares their quality scores. Use this when a tool scores poorly and you want to suggest better options, or when a user asks "what else is like X?".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of alternatives (default 5) | |
| tool_name | Yes | Name or description of the tool to find alternatives for, e.g. "playwright-mcp" or "browser automation" |
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 must carry the behavioral burden. It explains that the tool searches for similar tools and compares quality scores, but it does not describe output format, ordering, data sources, or side effects.
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?
Two concise sentences with no redundancy. The primary action is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is included efficiently.
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?
The tool is simple with clear parameters and usage guidance. It mentions comparing quality scores, hinting at the output, but the absence of an output schema means return value details are not fully described.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented. The description reinforces that tool_name can be a name or description but adds little beyond the schema.
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?
Description clearly states the tool finds alternatives to a specific tool and compares quality scores. It is understandable but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling 'recommend', which could also suggest better options.
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 gives concrete use cases: when a tool scores poorly or when a user asks for similar tools. It does not mention when not to use it versus alternatives, so it lacks exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.