Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
argus-qa

argus-qa

by ironclawdevs27
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

argus_compare

Compare dev and staging environments side-by-side to identify regressions before promoting a build. Captures screenshots and runs full analysis on both, surfacing issues present in staging but not dev.

Instructions

Diffs dev vs staging environments side-by-side. Navigates both URLs, captures screenshots, and runs the full analyzer suite on each, then surfaces regressions — findings present in staging but not dev, or with changed severity. Returns { regressions: [{type, devSeverity, stagingSeverity}], screenshots, summary }. Run before promoting a build to staging to catch environment-specific bugs. Set TARGET_DEV_URL and TARGET_STAGING_URL env vars before starting the server; omit TARGET_STAGING_URL to run CSS-analysis-only mode.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "argus_compare"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Describes all steps: navigating URLs, capturing screenshots, running analyzer, and returning regressions. Also explains need for env vars and CSS-analysis-only mode when TARGET_STAGING_URL is omitted. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden and does it well.

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?

Description is clear and informative but somewhat lengthy. Could be slightly tightened, but still effective. Front-loaded with main purpose.

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?

Given the complexity (multi-step, env vars, no output schema), description fully covers what the tool does, how to set it up, and what it returns. Leaves no important gaps.

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

Parameters4/5

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

No parameters in schema; baseline is 4. Description adds no parameter info as none exist.

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?

Clearly states it diffs dev vs staging environments, captures screenshots, runs analyzer, and surfaces regressions. Distinguishes from sibling tools like argus_visual_diff by specifying side-by-side comparison and regression detection.

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?

Explicitly says 'Run before promoting a build to staging' and explains environment variable setup. Missing explicit when-not-to-use, but context is sufficient.

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