Compare exactly two AI tools side-by-side. Returns structured field matrix and 'Choose A if... Choose B if...' verdict. Use this when a user wants to decide between two specific tools. For finding tools first, use search_listings or semantic_search.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug1 | Yes | First tool's slug (e.g. 'cursor') | |
| slug2 | Yes | Second tool's slug (e.g. 'claude-code') |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format ('structured field matrix and verdict'), implying read-only behavior. However, it does not explicitly state the tool is read-only or mention any side effects, which is a minor gap.
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?
The description is two sentences long with no redundant information. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately follows with usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains the output format and provides usage context. Parameter coverage is full, and behavioral transparency is adequate for a comparison tool.
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 coverage is 100% with both parameters already described clearly in the input schema (string with example slugs). The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly states the tool compares exactly two AI tools side-by-side, specifying the verb 'compare' and resource 'AI tools'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_listings and semantic_search by stating those are for finding tools first.
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 explicitly tells when to use this tool ('when a user wants to decide between two specific tools') and when not to ('For finding tools first, use search_listings or semantic_search'). Provides clear alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, with descriptions explicitly guiding when to use each. Overlaps between search/recommend tools are resolved by detailed usage instructions (e.g., recommend_tools vs semantic_search vs search_listings).
All tool names use consistent snake_case and follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., compare_listings, get_category, search_listings). Even semantic_search, while adjective_noun, matches the style seamlessly.
10 tools is ideal for a directory server: covers discovery, search, comparison, and detailed analysis without being overwhelming. Each tool serves a clear role in the workflow.
Covers core directory operations (browse, search, filter, compare, details). Lacks a 'list all tools' function, but users can retrieve listings per category or via search. Minor gap, but overall sufficient for agents.
