Skip to main content
Glama
zoomit-mcp

zoomit-mcp

by sepehr071

Compare products side by side

zm_compare
Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare 2-4 products side by side to see prices, scores, and shared or differing specs, helping you choose between models in the same category.

Instructions

Compare 2-4 products: price, scores and a spec table where each row lists the values in the order of products.

Use for "A or B"; products should share a category.

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": {
      "slugs": "<slugs>"
    },
    "name": "zm_compare"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugsYes2 to 4 product slugs.
only_differencesNoHide rows where all values are equal.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral detail: the spec table rows align to the order of `products`, which tells the agent how output is structured. It does not discuss limits on result size or failure modes for mismatched categories.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output, followed by the usage cue. No filler or redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so at a high level (price, scores, spec table). It is adequate for a simple two-parameter read tool, though it could say more about what happens when products span categories.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the 2-4 bound and the only_differences default. The description reinforces the ordering semantics of `slugs` via the row-order note but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 2-4 products') and enumerates what the comparison returns: price, scores, and a spec table. This clearly separates it from single-product siblings like zm_product or zm_similar, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Gives a concrete usage cue ('Use for "A or B"') plus a precondition that products should share a category. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or pointing to a sibling for cross-category needs, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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