Compare parametric specifications and identify pin-to-pin or drop-in alternates for 2 to 8 electronic components.
Compare parametric specifications and check pin-to-pin or drop-in alternates between 2 to 8 electronic components.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mpns | Yes | Array of 2 to 8 MPNs to compare side-by-side (e.g. ["STM32F103C8T6", "GD32F103C8T6"]) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does convey the core behavior: comparing specifications and checking for pin-to-pin or drop-in alternates. However, it does not disclose what the response contains, how alternates are determined, or error behavior, which are meaningful gaps given there is no output schema.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause contributes useful information: the operation, the target, the check being performed, and the cardinality constraint.
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 one-parameter comparison tool, the description covers the core purpose and input scope well. However, with no output schema, it should still clarify what the tool returns or how results are presented; it also does not mention how this tool relates to sibling tools, so some context remains missing.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the mpns parameter is already well documented with type, range, and an example. The description adds domain context ('electronic components,' 'alternates') but no additional parameter semantics or format details, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description identifies a specific operation ('Compare'), a concrete target ('parametric specifications'), and additional outputs ('pin-to-pin or drop-in alternates'), while explicitly limiting scope to 2–8 electronic components. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like search, product facts, and procurement.
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 description clearly implies when to use the tool: when comparing multiple components or checking interchangeability. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is strong enough for an agent to route correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.