Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Mimicus

Mimicus

by qwzx4893-stack
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

mimicus_compare_references

Compare selected open references with actual images and measured insights. Supply a project brief to synthesize grounded original composition, navigation and motion guidance; no aesthetic winner is inferred.

Instructions

Compare selected open references with actual images and measured insights. Supply a project brief to synthesize grounded original composition, navigation and motion guidance; no aesthetic winner is inferred.

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": {
      "sessionIds": "<sessionIds>"
    },
    "name": "mimicus_compare_references"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
briefNo
sessionIdsYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.1.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / brief / properties / priorities
      Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "enum": [
+      "conversion",
+      "reading",
+      "product-selection",
+      "exploration"
+    ],
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "maxItems": 3,
+  "minItems": 1,
+  "type": "array"
+}
  2. First observedv0.3.0-beta.2

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that no aesthetic ranking/winner is produced — but says nothing about what state the non-read-only call creates, whether results are cached, or any cost/latency of the comparison.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler; the comparison verb comes first and the synthesis outcome second. Some phrasing is dense jargon ('grounded original composition'), but nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, but the input side is complex (nested brief, enums, array bounds) and the description supplies almost none of the structure or constraints an agent needs to construct a valid call. For a tool of this complexity with 0% schema coverage, the description is under-specified.

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 description coverage is 0% across two parameters, one of which is a nested brief object with eight properties, three enums and length/count constraints. The description only gestures at 'a project brief' and hints at the motion dimension; it never explains sessionIds (2–3 open sessions), required brief fields, priorities, or anchorSessionId, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Compare selected open references with actual images and measured insights') and clarifies the output intent ('no aesthetic winner is inferred'). It does not name or contrast with the nearest siblings (mimicus_preview_references, mimicus_get_design_insights), so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 'selected open references' implies a precondition (sessions must already be open), and 'supply a project brief' implies what input to prepare, but neither is stated as an explicit rule. There is no statement of when to choose this over mimicus_get_design_insights or mimicus_preview_references, and no when-not guidance.

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