Skip to main content
Glama

compare_specifications

Compare 3GPP specifications across architecture, procedures, evolution, and implementation differences to identify variations and analyze changes between standards.

Instructions

Compare multiple 3GPP specifications across various criteria including architecture, procedures, evolution, and implementation differences.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
specification_idsYesArray of specification IDs to compare (e.g., ["TS 32.251", "TS 32.290"])
comparison_criteriaNoSpecific criteria to compare (e.g., ["architecture", "procedures", "interfaces", "evolution"])
include_evolution_analysisNoInclude analysis of specification evolution across releases (default: true)
formatNoResponse format - agent_ready provides structured JSON for AI agentsagent_ready

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function that executes the tool logic: validates input, calls the API manager to compare specifications, and formats the response based on the requested format (agent_ready, summary, or detailed).
    async execute(args: CompareSpecificationsArgs) {
      try {
        if (args.specification_ids.length < 2) {
          throw new Error('At least 2 specifications are required for comparison');
        }
    
        const comparison = await this.apiManager.compareSpecifications(args.specification_ids);
    
        const format = args.format || 'agent_ready';
    
        switch (format) {
          case 'agent_ready':
            return {
              content: [
                {
                  type: 'text',
                  text: JSON.stringify(this.formatForAgent(comparison, args), null, 2)
                }
              ]
            };
    
          case 'summary':
            return {
              content: [
                {
                  type: 'text',
                  text: this.formatSummary(comparison, args)
                }
              ]
            };
    
          case 'detailed':
          default:
            return {
              content: [
                {
                  type: 'text',
                  text: this.formatDetailed(comparison, args)
                }
              ]
            };
        }
    
      } catch (error) {
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: 'text',
              text: `Error comparing specifications: ${error instanceof Error ? error.message : 'Unknown error'}`
            }
          ],
          isError: true
        };
      }
    }
  • TypeScript interface defining the input arguments for the compare_specifications tool.
    export interface CompareSpecificationsArgs {
      specification_ids: string[];
      comparison_criteria?: string[];
      include_evolution_analysis?: boolean;
      format?: 'detailed' | 'summary' | 'agent_ready';
    }
  • The getDefinition method that provides the tool's metadata including name 'compare_specifications', description, and detailed inputSchema for MCP protocol.
    getDefinition() {
      return {
        name: 'compare_specifications',
        description: 'Compare multiple 3GPP specifications across various criteria including architecture, procedures, evolution, and implementation differences.',
        inputSchema: {
          type: 'object',
          properties: {
            specification_ids: {
              type: 'array',
              items: { type: 'string' },
              description: 'Array of specification IDs to compare (e.g., ["TS 32.251", "TS 32.290"])',
              minItems: 2,
              maxItems: 5
            },
            comparison_criteria: {
              type: 'array',
              items: { type: 'string' },
              description: 'Specific criteria to compare (e.g., ["architecture", "procedures", "interfaces", "evolution"])'
            },
            include_evolution_analysis: {
              type: 'boolean',
              description: 'Include analysis of specification evolution across releases (default: true)',
              default: true
            },
            format: {
              type: 'string',
              enum: ['detailed', 'summary', 'agent_ready'],
              description: 'Response format - agent_ready provides structured JSON for AI agents',
              default: 'agent_ready'
            }
          },
          required: ['specification_ids']
        }
      };
    }
  • src/index.ts:107-108 (registration)
    Registration in the main server request handler: dispatches calls to the compare_specifications tool to the appropriate tool instance's execute method.
    case 'compare_specifications':
      return await this.compareTool.execute(args as unknown as CompareSpecificationsArgs);
  • src/index.ts:80-80 (registration)
    Instantiation of the CompareSpecificationsTool instance in the server's initializeComponents method.
    this.compareTool = new CompareSpecificationsTool(this.apiManager);
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions comparing specifications across criteria and includes evolution analysis, but it doesn't disclose key behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, response time, or what happens if invalid IDs are provided. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Compare multiple 3GPP specifications') and lists key criteria. It avoids redundancy and waste, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating usage hints or behavioral details, but it's concise and clear.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral context (e.g., safety, performance), usage guidelines, and details on output format or error handling. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should do more to compensate, but it falls short, leaving gaps for an AI agent to operate effectively.

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 description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage. It lists example criteria (architecture, procedures, evolution, implementation differences), which loosely maps to the 'comparison_criteria' parameter but doesn't provide additional syntax, constraints, or context beyond what's in the schema descriptions. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't significantly compensate or add value.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: comparing 3GPP specifications across specific criteria like architecture, procedures, evolution, and implementation differences. It uses the verb 'compare' with the resource '3GPP specifications' and lists example criteria, making the function specific. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'search_specifications' or 'get_specification_details', which might also involve specification analysis, so it misses full differentiation.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lists criteria for comparison but doesn't mention sibling tools (e.g., 'find_implementation_requirements' or 'get_specification_details') or specify contexts where this comparison is preferred over other operations. There's an implied usage based on the criteria, but no explicit when/when-not instructions or alternatives are provided.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/edhijlu/3gpp-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server