MAScope MCP Server

compare_apps

Compare 2-5 World MiniApps side by side to get rank, users, opens, rating, review count, and trend data for each app, enabling competitive analysis.

Instructions

Compare 2-5 World MiniApps side by side. Returns rank, users, opens, rating, review count, and trend data for each app. Useful for competitive analysis.

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": {
      "ids": "<ids>"
    },
    "name": "compare_apps"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ids`	Yes	Comma-separated MiniApp UUIDs (2-5 apps). Get IDs from search_miniapps.
`locale`	No	Description language (default: en)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Aug 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explicitly says 'Returns...' which implies a read-only operation, and lists the output fields, giving a clear picture of behavior. It does not mention rate limits or error handling, but for a comparison read tool this is adequate.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and each sentence adds value. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

The tool is reasonably simple with two parameters and no output schema. The description compensates by listing the specific return fields and the use case. It lacks explicit output structure or error behavior, but overall it gives a clear and sufficient picture for an agent to use the tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds the count constraint (2-5 apps) which is also present in the ids parameter description. No additional semantic meaning is provided beyond what the schema already documents.

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 clearly states the tool compares 2-5 MiniApps side by side, which is a specific verb+resource. It also enumerates the returned data (rank, users, opens, rating, review count, trend), differentiating it from sibling tools like get_app_details or search_miniapps.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides a clear use case ('useful for competitive analysis') and implies a multi-app comparison context. It does not explicitly exclude siblings or state when-not-to-use, but the purpose is self-evident.

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

Deploy Server