MCP-Server de Mapas Mentais

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

compara

Generate a mind map to visually compare two topics, helping identify similarities and differences for better understanding and organization.

Instructions

Gera um mapa mental comparando dois temas.

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": {
      "tema1": "<tema1>",
      "tema2": "<tema2>"
    },
    "name": "compara"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tema1`	Yes
`tema2`	Yes

Implementation Reference

server.py:9-18 (handler)

The main handler function for the 'compara' tool. It takes two string parameters (tema1 and tema2) and returns a formatted string representing a mind map comparison between the two themes, listing key topics like definitions, characteristics, pros/cons, applications, and differences/similarities.

def compara(tema1: str, tema2: str) -> str:
    """Gera um mapa mental comparando dois temas."""
    return (
        f"Comparação entre {tema1} e {tema2}, focando somente nos tópicos abaixo:\n"
        f"- Definições de {tema1} e {tema2}\n"
        f"- Características principais\n"
        f"- Vantagens e desvantagens\n"
        f"- Aplicações práticas\n"
        f"- Diferenças e semelhanças"
    )

server.py:8-8 (registration)
The decorator that registers the 'compara' function as an MCP tool named 'compara'.
```
@mcp.tool(name="compara")
```
server.py:9-9 (schema)
The function signature defining the input schema (two string parameters: tema1, tema2) and output type (str). The docstring provides additional description.
```
def compara(tema1: str, tema2: str) -> str:
```

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedAug 14, 2025

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

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. While 'gera' (generates) implies a creation operation, the description doesn't specify whether this is a read-only or mutating action, what permissions might be required, whether there are rate limits, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence: 'Gera um mapa mental comparando dois temas.' It's front-loaded with the core action and includes all essential elements (action, resource, scope) without any wasted words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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 complexity (a mind map generation tool with two parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the mind map output contains, how comparisons are structured, whether there are limitations on theme complexity, or what happens if themes are invalid. For a creative/generation tool, more contextual guidance would be helpful.

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 mentions 'dois temas' (two themes), which aligns with the two parameters (tema1 and tema2) in the schema. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides no details about these parameters. The description adds basic semantic context (they represent themes to compare) but doesn't elaborate on format, constraints, or examples. This meets the baseline for minimal parameter information.

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: 'Gera um mapa mental comparando dois temas' (Generates a mind map comparing two themes). It specifies the verb ('gera' - generates), resource ('mapa mental' - mind map), and scope ('comparando dois temas' - comparing two themes). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'apresenta' or 'revisa', which might also involve presentation or review functions.

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. There are no explicit instructions about when this tool is appropriate, when it should not be used, or what sibling tools might serve as alternatives for related tasks. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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

Deploy Server