pricing-time-machine-mcp

compare_competitors

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare up to 8 competitors' archived pricing pages side by side for a chosen date to see plan names and prices at the same point in time.

Instructions

Prices of 2-8 competitors' pricing pages side by side, as archived closest to the same date.

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_competitors"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`date`	No	'YYYY', 'YYYY-MM', 'YYYY-MM-DD' or 'latest'. The closest archived copy is used.	latest
`urls`	Yes	2-8 pricing pages, e.g. ['notion.so/pricing', 'coda.io/pricing'].
`response_format`	No	'markdown' (default) or 'json'.	markdown

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 1, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that archives are used 'closest to the same date', which is useful context about data sourcing, but doesn't elaborate on rate limits, response structure, or error handling.

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?

Single concise sentence that front-loads the core action and includes key constraints (2-8 competitors, same date). No wasted words.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given annotations and a full schema with output schema, the description is largely complete. It could mention alternatives or usage context, but the essential information for calling the tool correctly is present.

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%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond what's in the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific action (compares prices side by side) and resource (competitors' pricing pages). However, it doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like compare_pricing – the name 'compare_competitors' and description imply a similar function but no explicit differentiation is provided.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives like compare_pricing or pricing_snapshots. The description merely states what it does, leaving selection criteria unclear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server