Skip to main content
Glama
ty-meador

civ-v-llm-harness

by ty-meador
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

compare

Evaluates side-by-side candidates for production, research, improvements, or trade decisions, providing facts without a recommendation.

Instructions

Your candidates side by side in one read, for a decision you are weighing; the facts, never a pick. kind="production": city_id + candidates (up to 8 UNIT_/BUILDING_/PROJECT_/PROCESS_ types): can_produce or why not, cost, stored, turns, gold / faith price with *can_buy, effects, conditional per-tile yields with how many of this city's tiles qualify, estimated_change (formula in assumptions), maintenance, unique_replaces. kind="research": up to 8 TECH types: status, cost, progress, turns, missing_prereqs, path_beakers and path_turns_estimate for a locked one, unlocks. kind="improvements": unit_id (a worker) + optional plots ([[x, y], ...]; default: plots within 2 that are owned or hold a resource) + optional candidates (BUILD_ types): per plot yields_now, worked, city; per build legal (or why), turns (work only), tile_change, empire_change when a city works the tile, removes / chop_production, connects, maintenance. Fogged plots are not read. sort= a yield or "turns". kind="trade": unit_id (a caravan or cargo ship in a city): every destination with what each end receives, distance and hazard (visible hostiles and camps near it; never "safe"). sort= gold, science, food, production, *_them or distance. Every answer has context, sources, assumptions, n / returned and omitted with the arguments that fetch the rest (limit, 1-20). detail="full" adds help text and the chooser's hover breakdown. Field by field: how_to_play("compare").

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindYes
sortNo
limitNo
plotsNo
detailNosummary
city_idNo
unit_idNo
candidatesNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.11.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description still discloses meaningful behavior: it is a read-oriented comparison ('one read' and 'the facts, never a pick'), fogged plots are not read, answers include context/sources/assumptions/omitted items, and detail='full' adds help text. It does not explicitly state that the tool never mutates game state, but the read-only framing is strong.

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?

The description is long, but the tool has four distinct modes and eight parameters, and the text is front-loaded and organized by kind. Most sentences add useful mode-specific detail, though the density could be reduced slightly.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is unusually complete: it covers all modes, inputs, defaults, output fields, assumptions, pagination/omitted behavior, and how to escalate detail. An agent has enough context to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning, and it does: it defines every kind mode, explains sort options per mode, gives limit range 1-20, describes plots defaults, detail='full', and which parameters apply to city_id, unit_id, and candidates.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear comparison purpose: 'Your candidates side by side in one read, for a decision you are weighing; the facts, never a pick.' It names the compared resources across four modes and explicitly distinguishes the tool from a recommendation engine.

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?

It gives strong mode-by-mode usage guidance, explaining when to use kind='production', 'research', 'improvements', or 'trade' and what inputs each mode expects. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or when not to use compare, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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