Skip to main content
Glama

Standout

by io.standoutmcp

critique_similarity

Originality guardrail — compare a built page/source/description against a reference site and flag shared recognizable fingerprints. Use after build_from_reference_v2, before showing or publishing, to avoid producing a design that is visually too close to the inspiration.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
favorite_bitsNoThe same favorite bits passed to build_from_reference_v2, if any
reference_urlYesPublic URL of the reference site the user liked
response_formatNoReturn markdown or structured JSON
candidate_sourceNoBuilt page HTML/CSS/JSX to compare against the reference
candidate_descriptionNoPlain-language description of the built design if source is unavailable

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the tool's role as an originality guardrail but does not disclose return format, side effects, or what 'flag' means in practice. The workflow context adds some transparency but leaves behavioral details unspecified.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys both purpose and usage. Every word serves a function, with no redundant detail.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool lacks an output schema, and the description does not explain return values or how response_format affects output. It adequately covers when to use and overall purpose but omits behavioral completion details, leaving the agent to infer what 'flag' means.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by linking candidate_source/candidate_description to the built page and tying favorite_bits to build_from_reference_v2, providing cross-tool context beyond the schema descriptions.

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 tool compares a built page/source/description against a reference site and flags shared fingerprints. It distinguishes from siblings like critique_design by focusing on originality and specifies the workflow placement after build_from_reference_v2.

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 explicitly says to use after build_from_reference_v2 and before showing or publishing, giving a clear trigger context. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative names, but the usage timing is precise and actionable.

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

All Standout 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have unclear boundaries: build_from_reference and build_from_reference_v2 serve nearly the same purpose, make_it_standout and polish_and_prove overlap heavily, and get_design_direction, synthesize_direction_from_references, and build_from_reference_v2 all produce design directions. The long descriptions help, but an agent could easily select the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_design_direction, search_references, watch_site). Minor deviations like client_report, make_it_standout, and polish_and_prove are acceptable but slightly break the pattern.

Tool Count2/5

30 tools is too many for a design toolkit, exceeding the 25+ threshold for 'too many'. Many 'get' tools could be consolidated (e.g., get_hero_concept, get_motion_recipes, get_asset_pack could be one tool). The count feels bloated rather than well-scoped.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the full design/build/critique/report/watch lifecycle well, from direction and sections to client reports and site monitoring. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit 'update' or 'delete' for references), but these are not critical to the core workflow.

Resources