ask

compare

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare two developmental topics, conditions, or skills side by side (e.g. 'speech delay' vs 'autism'; 'speech therapy' vs 'occupational therapy'). Returns corpus-grounded points of similarity and difference. Non-diagnostic.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`a`	Yes	First topic.
`b`	Yes	Second topic.
`limit`	No	Max items per side (1–25, default 6).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	No	Sanitised jsonb projection from the locked ask_* RPC layer.
`tool`	Yes
`source`	Yes
`disclaimer`	Yes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable context: returns corpus-grounded points of similarity/difference and is non-diagnostic. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and provide examples and a disclaimer. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple tool with full schema coverage, output schema present, and clear annotations, the description covers all necessary context. It explains what the tool returns and its limitations (non-diagnostic).

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning to parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 specifies the action (compare), the objects (developmental topics, conditions, skills), and provides concrete examples ('speech delay' vs 'autism'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'related' or 'milestones' by focusing on side-by-side comparison.

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 gives clear usage context through examples and explicitly states 'Non-diagnostic,' which guides appropriate use. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or specify when not to use this tool versus siblings.

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

All ask tools Inspect

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

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: browse discovers taxonomy values, topic retrieves content for a value, compare does side-by-side analysis, fetch gets full answers, etc. No two tools overlap in functionality, and descriptions make their unique roles evident.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names are lowercase, using underscores for compound names (lookup_code, red_flags) while others are single words. This pattern is consistent and predictable, with no mixing of conventions like camelCase.

Tool Count5/5

With 11 tools covering search, retrieval, browsing, comparison, milestones, pathways, red flags, clinical code lookup, and a home overview, the count is well-scoped for a knowledge corpus. Each tool serves a necessary function without redundancy.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full user journey: orienting (home), discovering (browse), searching (search), retrieving (fetch), comparing (compare), exploring (topic, milestones, pathway, red_flags, related), and code-based lookup (lookup_code). No critical missing operations.

Resources

Need Help?