Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
awwwards-mcp

awwwards-mcp

by INSANE0777
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

compare_sites

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare the design DNA of 2–3 Awwwards sites—titles, URLs, palettes, technologies, elements, awards, and jury scores—with missing details fetched and cached.

Instructions

Compare the design DNA of 2–3 Awwwards sites: titles, live URLs, palettes, technologies, elements, awards and jury scores. Text only; missing details are fetched and cached. For your own build vs a reference, use verify_build instead.

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": {
      "slugs": "<slugs>"
    },
    "name": "compare_sites"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugsYesTwo or three distinct site slugs from search_sites

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.14.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.13.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  3. Addedv1.7.2

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavior annotations do not: it is text-only, and missing details are fetched and cached, telling the agent that responses may involve remote fetches with caching side effects and that no rich media is returned.

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?

Two sentences, both dense with information: the first states scope and output content, the second states the routing rule and the fetch/cache trait. Nothing is redundant; the disambiguation is front-loaded after the core purpose.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description enumerates the compared fields (titles, URLs, palettes, technologies, elements, awards, jury scores), effectively conveying the return shape. With annotations covering safety and the schema covering the one parameter, nothing an agent needs is missing.

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%: the single 'slugs' parameter is documented with minItems 2, maxItems 3, the slug pattern, and the 'from search_sites' source. The description's '2–3' restates the bounds but adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb (compare) and resource (design DNA of 2–3 Awwwards sites) and enumerates exactly which attributes are compared: titles, URLs, palettes, technologies, elements, awards, jury scores. It also names the sibling it is not (verify_build), so an agent can separate the two without opening a 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?

Explicitly routes one case to an alternative: 'For your own build vs a reference, use verify_build instead.' The 2–3 site scope is also stated, which bounds when the tool applies. It does not, however, point to search_sites for obtaining slugs in the description (only the schema does), so 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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools