Skip to main content
Glama
verIdyia

AutoEQ MCP Server

by verIdyia

eq_compare

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare two headphones band-by-band for sound signature analysis using frequency response measurements and parametric EQ profiles.

Instructions

Compare two headphones band-by-band with sound signature analysis.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
name1YesFirst model name
name2YesSecond model name

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function `eq_compare` implements the comparison of two headphones. It uses `_find_headphone` to locate the headphone records in the database and `format_comparison` to generate the comparison report.
        name="eq_compare",
        annotations={
            "title": "Compare headphones",
            "readOnlyHint": True,
            "destructiveHint": False,
            "idempotentHint": True,
            "openWorldHint": False,
        },
    )
    async def eq_compare(
        name1: str = Field(..., description="First model name"),
        name2: str = Field(..., description="Second model name"),
    ) -> str:
        """Compare two headphones band-by-band with sound signature analysis."""
        conn = get_db()
        hp1 = _find_headphone(conn, name1)
        hp2 = _find_headphone(conn, name2)
        conn.close()
    
        if not hp1:
            return f"'{name1}' not found."
        if not hp2:
            return f"'{name2}' not found."
    
        return format_comparison(hp1, hp2)
  • The helper function `format_comparison` is responsible for generating the text report comparing two headphone records.
    def format_comparison(row1, row2) -> str:
        lines = []
        lines.append(f"# Comparison: {row1['name']} vs {row2['name']}")
        lines.append(f"  Source: {row1['source']} vs {row2['source']}")
    
        if row1["score"] or row2["score"]:
            s1 = f"{row1['score']}" if row1["score"] else "N/A"
            s2 = f"{row2['score']}" if row2["score"] else "N/A"
            lines.append(f"  Harman score: {s1} vs {s2}")
    
        lines.append(f"  Signature: {row1['signature'] or 'N/A'} vs {row2['signature'] or 'N/A'}")
    
        lines.append(f"\n## Per-band comparison (deviation from target, dB)")
        lines.append(f"  {'Band':<25} {'Model 1':>8} {'Model 2':>8} {'Diff':>8}")
        lines.append(f"  {'─'*25} {'─'*8} {'─'*8} {'─'*8}")
        for band, label in BAND_LABELS.items():
            col = f"{band}_avg"
            v1 = row1[col]
            v2 = row2[col]
            if v1 is not None and v2 is not None:
                diff = v1 - v2
                lines.append(f"  {label:<25} {v1:>+8.1f} {v2:>+8.1f} {diff:>+8.1f}")
            else:
                lines.append(f"  {label:<25} {'N/A':>8} {'N/A':>8} {'N/A':>8}")
    
        lines.append("\n## Summary")
        for row in [row1, row2]:
            sig = row["signature"] or "unclassified"
            lines.append(f"- **{row['name']}**: {sig}")
    
        return "\n".join(lines)
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate this is a read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation with a closed-world scope. The description adds valuable context about the comparison methodology ('band-by-band with sound signature analysis'), which helps the agent understand what kind of analysis to expect beyond just a simple comparison.

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 that immediately conveys the core purpose without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (comparison analysis), rich annotations (covering safety and behavior), and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It could be slightly improved by mentioning output format or comparison criteria, but the annotations and output schema compensate well.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters clearly documented as model names. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format requirements or examples. With full schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Compare') and resource ('two headphones') with additional detail about the comparison method ('band-by-band with sound signature analysis'). It distinguishes from siblings like eq_profile, eq_ranking, and eq_recommend by focusing on direct comparison rather than profiling, ranking, or recommending.

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 description implies usage when comparing two specific headphone models, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like eq_search (which might find models) or eq_recommend (which suggests models). There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative advantages.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/verIdyia/autoeq-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server