Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Deep Research MCP Server

Deep Research MCP Server

by SECRET4422
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

compare_sources

Compare information from multiple web sources by analyzing 2-5 URLs, with an optional focus parameter to refine the comparison.

Instructions

Compare 2-5 URLs

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": {
      "urls": "<urls>"
    },
    "name": "compare_sources"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlsYes
focusNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.3.1
    • removedInput schema / properties / focus / description
      Removed value: -"What aspect to focus comparison on? e.g. 'pricing', 'effectiveness'"
    • removedInput schema / properties / urls / description
      Removed value: -"2-5 URLs to compare"
  2. First observedv1.2.0

TDQS

D1.8/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., whether it is read-only, requires authentication, or modifies data). The description does not add context beyond the bare action.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

Extremely short (6 words) but lacks essential information. It is under-specified rather than appropriately concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to explain what the output is, how to use 'focus', or any expected behavior.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The description does not explain the 'focus' parameter or provide meaning beyond the input schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but fails to do so.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Compare 2-5 URLs' provides a verb and resource, but is vague about what aspect is compared (e.g., content, reliability). It does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'extract_insights' or 'fact_check_claim'.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not-to-use or exclusions provided.

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