Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
LLMxRay-MCP

LLMxRay-MCP

by LogneBudo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

Compare my turns

compare_my_turns
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check whether a prompt or config change helped: compare median cached share, prefill time, generation speed and prompt size before vs after, with a one-line verdict.

Instructions

Did a change help? Medians of cached share, prefill time, generation speed and prompt size for the turns before and after a moment, with the difference and a one-line verdict on the cache. Four tools read your turns, one question each: diagnose_my_turns, is anything wrong (a verdict over several turns); read_my_last_turn, what exactly happened on the latest turn (one turn in full); list_my_turns, what happened turn by turn (the sequence, one line each); compare_my_turns, did a change help (before against after). Use it after you changed a system prompt, keep_alive, num_ctx or the tool list. split_minutes_ago: 1 to 10080, default 60: turns older than that are "before", newer are "after"; set it to the minutes since your change. client: your X-LLMxRay-Client name, so another tool's turns do not mix in. Both sides need at least one turn, else it says what to move. Needs LLMxRay running (npx llmxray). Under a second. No model is called.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "compare_my_turns"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
clientNoSubstring of the client label, case-insensitive. Omit for all clients.
split_minutes_agoNoMinutes ago that separate before from after, 1 to 10080. Default 60.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.8.9
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. Addedv0.8.6

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: it requires LLMxRay running via npx llmxray, runs under a second, calls no model, and fails with guidance ('it says what to move') when either side has no turns. Return-format detail is left to the medians/verdict summary, so it is short of a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The value proposition is front-loaded in one question ('Did a change help?'), followed by the metrics and the sibling routing table, then parameters and prerequisites. Nothing is redundant, though the four-tool enumeration is a fairly long detour for a single tool and slightly dilutes the core instruction.

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?

With no output schema, the description still conveys what is returned (medians per metric, the delta, and a one-line cache verdict). It covers prerequisites, timing, parameter meaning, and the failure mode of insufficient turns on either side, which is everything needed to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond it: split_minutes_ago is explained semantically (older = 'before', newer = 'after', set it to minutes since your change) rather than just bounded, and client is given a purpose ('so another tool's turns do not mix in'). The schema's own note that client matches a substring is not restated, so it is not a full 5.

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 names a concrete verb and resource (compare turns before vs after a moment) and enumerates exactly what is computed: medians of cached share, prefill time, generation speed and prompt size, plus the difference and a one-line verdict. It explicitly positions itself against the three sibling turn-readers, so the agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states the triggering situation directly: 'Use it after you changed a system prompt, keep_alive, num_ctx or the tool list.' It also maps the entire sibling family to one question each (diagnose_my_turns = verdict, read_my_last_turn = one turn in full, list_my_turns = sequence), which is an explicit alternative-selection guide.

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