On the Register

compare_medicines

Put two weight-loss/diabetes injections (Mounjaro, Wegovy, Ozempic, Saxenda) side by side on SmPC facts: doses, frequency, pen, licensing, NHS access, storage. Returns a row-by-row table with the rows that differ flagged. Facts only, never a 'which is right for you'.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "a": "<a>",
      "b": "<b>"
    },
    "name": "compare_medicines"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`a`	Yes
`b`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the return shape as a row-by-row table, notes that differing rows are flagged, and limits output to facts rather than recommendations. It does not discuss whether the same medicine can be compared with itself, whether argument order matters, or any failure behavior, which are minor gaps for a read-only comparison.

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 front-loaded and compact: the comparison scope, fact categories, return shape, and fact-only constraint are all delivered without wasted wording. Every sentence contributes to selection or interpretation.

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?

For a read-only two-parameter comparison tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers the input domain, compared fact categories, return format, and the no-advice boundary. Remaining gaps around same-drug comparison and argument order are minor.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the parameter names a and b are opaque, so the description must compensate. It does identify the allowed medicine domain and explains that the two inputs are compared side by side, but it does not explicitly map a and b to the two medicines or clarify whether they must be distinct and whether order affects the output.

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 states a specific verb and resource: compare two named weight-loss/diabetes injections side by side on SmPC facts. It enumerates the medicine brands and the fact categories, so an agent can distinguish this from sibling tools like storage_check or sideeffects_list without opening the schema.

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?

It clearly frames the tool for head-to-head SmPC comparison and explicitly excludes personalized 'which is right for you' advice. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives to use instead for single-drug storage, side effects, or pen instructions, so the routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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

All On the Register tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?