compare_episodesCompare download performance across multiple episodes of one show, aligned by each episode's publish date, to identify which episodes drive more listens.
Compare download performance of several episodes of the same show (aligned from each publish date).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| show_id | Yes | Captivate show ID (from list_shows) | |
| episode_ids | Yes | Two or more episode IDs to compare |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description adds a genuine behavioral detail: series are aligned from each publish date, so comparisons are age-normalized. It does not disclose the comparison output shape, any cap on episode count, or whether a fixed lookback window applies.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the key scope qualifier in parentheses. Nothing wasted, nothing buried.
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?
For a 2-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and an explicit alignment rule, this is nearly complete. Minor gap: with no output schema, it says nothing about what the comparison result contains (metric, granularity, window).
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% (baseline 3), and the description adds a real constraint not encoded in the schema: all episode_ids must belong to the same show, matching show_id. That semantic linkage is useful; it does not add format/syntax detail 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?
States a specific verb (compare) and resource (download performance of several episodes), plus the 'same show' scope and the alignment-to-publish-date basis. No sibling does comparison, so it is distinguishable, though it never names an alternative.
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?
Usage is implied by 'several episodes of the same show' — an agent can infer this is for multi-episode comparison rather than single-episode lookup (get_episode). But there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not guidance or reference to a sibling tool for single-episode or aggregate downloads.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.