Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aperture-mcp

aperture-mcp

by jaysinailabs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

compare_stance

Compare stance between two document versions, detecting polarity reversal (support↔oppose) as degraded. Only evaluates goal and baseline anchors.

Instructions

compare specialized for a STANCE: also flags polarity reversal (support↔oppose) as degraded. Checks ONLY goal/baseline anchors (other kinds silently ignored) in state_b.

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": {
      "state_a": "<state_a>",
      "state_b": "<state_b>"
    },
    "name": "compare_stance"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
anchorsNo
state_aYes
state_bYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, description discloses important behaviors: polarity reversal flagged as degraded, non-goal/baseline anchors silently ignored. This adds transparency beyond typical expectations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with key information. Could be more structured but overall efficient.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Description covers behavior and constraints on anchors, but lacks explanation of state parameters and what 'degraded' means for output. Output schema exists but still feels incomplete for full understanding.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must explain parameters. It gives meaning to 'anchors' (filters to goal/baseline) but does not explain 'state_a' or 'state_b' beyond being string states, leaving gaps.

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?

Description clearly states it is a specialized compare for stance, with unique behavior (flags polarity reversal). It implies distinction from sibling tools but does not explicitly name them.

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?

Description specifies that only goal/baseline anchors are checked and others are ignored, providing context for when to use. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives among sibling tools.

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