Skip to main content
Glama
giorgio44

gateonai-mcp-server

by giorgio44
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Compare AI Tools

compare_ai_tools
Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare two or three AI tools head-to-head. Get pricing, features, GateOnAI scores, pros and cons, plus a recommendation on which to choose.

Instructions

Compare two or three AI tools head-to-head. Returns pricing, features, GateOnAI scores, pros/cons, and a recommendation on which tool to choose.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tool1_slugYesURL slug of the first tool to compare. Examples: 'chatgpt', 'claude', 'midjourney', 'jasper'
tool2_slugYesURL slug of the second tool to compare. Examples: 'google-gemini', 'dall-e-3', 'elevenlabs', 'notion'
tool3_slugNoOptional third tool slug for a 3-way comparison (e.g. 'perplexity')

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toolYesName of the tool that produced this result
linksYesgateonai.com URLs referenced in the result, in order of appearance
is_errorYesTrue if the tool could not complete the request
markdownYesThe full result as Markdown (same as the text content), including GateOnAI's disclaimer

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.3.2
    • changedInput schema / properties / tool2_slug / description
      Previous value: -"URL slug of the second tool to compare. Examples: 'gemini', 'dall-e', 'copy-ai', 'notion-ai'"New value: +"URL slug of the second tool to compare. Examples: 'google-gemini', 'dall-e-3', 'elevenlabs', 'notion'"
    • addedInput schema / properties / tool3_slug
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional third tool slug for a 3-way comparison (e.g. 'perplexity')",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv1.2.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's remaining content (pricing, features, scores, pros/cons, recommendation) is largely return-value information, and an output schema exists, so it adds little behavioral context such as slug-resolution behavior or failure modes for invalid slugs.

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?

Two short sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence enumerates return contents, which is somewhat redundant given the existing output schema, keeping it just short of a 5.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With rich annotations and an output schema present, the definition only needs to establish what the comparison produces and how many tools it accepts, both of which are stated. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters including examples. The description only contributes the cardinality constraint ('two or three'), which the schema already encodes via required tool1/tool2 plus optional tool3. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb and resource ('Compare two or three AI tools head-to-head') and enumerates what the comparison surfaces. It is clear what the tool does, but it never names or contrasts itself against close siblings like get_tool_details, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase 'compare two or three AI tools head-to-head' implicitly conveys the use case (multi-tool side-by-side rather than single-tool lookup), which is the only guidance present. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, and no alternative sibling is named even though get_tool_details and find_similar_by_philosophy overlap in domain.

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