Skip to main content
Glama
w01fgang

MCP Design Comparison Server

by w01fgang

compare_design

Compare a design screenshot with an implementation screenshot. Returns pixel difference metrics, structural similarity score, and optional diff image with highlighted differences.

Instructions

Compare a design screenshot with an implementation screenshot using pixelmatch and SSIM. Supports PNG, JPEG, WebP, GIF, TIFF, and SVG inputs (SVGs are rasterized at svg_density). Returns the number and percentage of different pixels, a structural-similarity (SSIM) score, a diff bounding box and heat grid showing where differences cluster, and optionally outputs a diff image highlighting the differences.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
localizeNoIf true (default), include a diff bounding box and a coarse per-cell heat grid in the result, showing where differences cluster. Set false to skip the extra pass.
thresholdNoMatching threshold (0-1). Smaller values make the comparison more sensitive. Default is 0.1.
resize_fitNoHow to scale the implementation when dimensions differ. 'contain' (default) preserves aspect ratio and letterboxes; 'fill' stretches to the exact dimensions; 'cover' preserves aspect ratio and crops the overflow.contain
auto_resizeNoIf true (default), the implementation screenshot is scaled to the design's dimensions when they differ, instead of failing. Set false to require identical dimensions.
design_pathYesPath to the design screenshot (supports PNG, JPEG, WebP, GIF, TIFF, SVG)
svg_densityNoRasterization density (DPI) for SVG inputs. Higher = crisper vector render before comparison. Default 288 (4x the 72dpi baseline). Aimed at small assets (icons/logos); lower it for large vector art.
ignore_regionsNoRectangles (design-space coordinates) to exclude from the comparison, e.g. dynamic content like timestamps or avatars. Excluded pixels count toward neither the diff nor the percentage denominator.
output_diff_pathNoOptional path to save the diff image. If not provided, the diff image will be returned as base64.
implementation_pathYesPath to the implementation screenshot (supports PNG, JPEG, WebP, GIF, TIFF, SVG)
max_difference_percentageNoIf set and the difference percentage exceeds it, the call returns an error (isError: true). Use as a CI gate against a golden image. Omit for report-only.
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals the comparison algorithms, SVG rasterization behavior, and diff image option. However, it omits potential side effects (e.g., file system reads only), error conditions, or performance impact, leaving some behavioral aspects implicit.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, somewhat long sentence. It is clear and contains no redundancy, but could be more scannable with bullet points or shorter sentences. It is adequate but not optimally structured.

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 no output schema, the description reasonably covers return values (diff counts, SSIM, bounding box, heat grid, optional diff image) and key parameter behaviors. It adequately informs the user of what to expect, though some minor details (e.g., color handling) are absent.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% (baseline 3), but the description adds valuable context beyond schema field descriptions, such as explaining how ignore_regions affects counts and that svg_density is aimed at small assets. It enhances understanding of parameter behavior.

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 tool compares design and implementation screenshots using pixelmatch and SSIM, lists supported formats, and details return metrics. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing the tool's purpose effectively.

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 explains what the tool does but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. Since no sibling tools are given, this is acceptable but lacks proactive context for selection.

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/w01fgang/mcp-design-comparison'

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