Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Search Evidence

Search Evidence

by baeseokjae
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

search_compare

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare two equal-length Google periods to reveal search performance changes, using before/after period IDs and optional pagination.

Instructions

Compare compatible equal-length Google periods.

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": {
      "before": "<before>",
      "after": "<after>"
    },
    "name": "search_compare"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
afterYes
limitNo
beforeYes
cursorNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okNo
dataNo
errorNo
warningsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare this operation read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the important behavioral requirement that the two periods must be equal length and compatible, which is not in the schema or annotations. It does not disclose pagination behavior, output shape, or what happens when the compatibility constraint is violated.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The single sentence is front-loaded and contains no filler, so it is concise in the literal sense. However, for a tool with four opaque parameters and a comparison operation, this level of brevity is under-specification rather than efficient structure. It reads as an internal note rather than a complete tool description.

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

Completeness2/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But the definition leaves the agent without the meaning of the required hex parameters, the pagination model, or any usage context. For a four-parameter comparison tool, the description is not complete enough to invoke it confidently.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and does not. The four parameters are before/after 64-character hex strings, limit (default 50, max 500), and cursor, but the description never explains that before/after are period identifiers or hashes, how to obtain them, or how limit and cursor control pagination. Only the vague phrase 'periods' hints at the meaning of the required parameters.

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 names a specific verb and object ('Compare ... Google periods'), so it is not a tautology. But 'compatible equal-length Google periods' is vague about what a period is (a date range, a hash identifier?) and does not distinguish this comparison operation from any of the many sibling search_* tools. An agent can guess the general purpose but not the exact operation.

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?

There is a single stated constraint ('compatible equal-length'), but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_traffic or search_render_report. No prerequisites or exclusions are given. The agent must infer all routing decisions.

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