compare_recordsScore a pair of contact records from 0 to 1 and list the signals that drive the score, enabling precise threshold tuning for duplicate detection.
Score a single pair 0-1 and list the signals behind the score — useful for tuning the threshold.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| a | Yes | First record as field/value pairs | |
| b | Yes | ||
| fields | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'scores' a pair, which implies a read-only computation, but it does not explicitly disclose that it has no side effects, nor does it explain what kind of signals are returned or how the score is computed. The phrase 'list the signals' is vague about the content and format. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, one sentence with a purposeful start ('Score a single pair'). It efficiently communicates the core action and output. It could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose, but as is, it is appropriately sized and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and limited schema coverage. The description only provides the high-level purpose and a vague reference to signals. It does not explain the return format beyond a 0-1 score, nor does it clarify parameter semantics or any edge cases (e.g., missing fields, mismatched field names). An agent trying to call this tool correctly would likely need additional documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has low description coverage (33%) – only parameter 'a' is described, while 'b' and 'fields' lack descriptions. The tool description does not mention any parameters or explain their roles. It only says 'Score a single pair', which implicitly refers to a and b, but does not clarify what 'fields' does or how it affects scoring. Given the low schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb (score) and a resource (a single pair) and clarifies the output (0-1 score plus signals). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_duplicates (which scans many records) and dedupe_csv (which performs deduplication). An agent can immediately understand what the tool does and how it differs from alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions a concrete use case: 'useful for tuning the threshold'. This gives context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it. The sibling names imply other tools for bulk operations, but the description itself does not draw that contrast. Still, the stated purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer its role.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.