Compare design DNA of 2-3 Awwwards sites by slug to reveal palettes, technologies, elements, awards, and jury scores side by side.
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.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slugs | Yes | Two or three distinct site slugs from search_sites |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: output is text only (no imagery), and missing details are fetched and cached — implying network calls and possible latency. It stops short of stating caching lifetime or failure behavior.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the comparison scope, then a second sentence covering output mode and data-fetch behavior. No filler.
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?
There is no output schema, so enumerating the returned facets in the description is exactly what's needed; combined with the text-only and fetch/cache notes, an agent has enough to invoke and interpret results.
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% and the single param (slugs) is fully documented in the schema, including the 2–3 distinct-slug constraint that mirrors min/maxItems. The description restates the count but adds no format guidance beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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 (design DNA of Awwwards sites) with explicit scope (2–3 sites) and enumerates the compared facets (titles, URLs, palettes, technologies, elements, awards, jury scores). This clearly distinguishes it from the single-site sibling get_site_details.
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?
The 2–3 site scope implies this is the multi-site comparison tool versus get_site_details for one site, but it never states when to prefer it or what to do for a single site. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.