compare_robotsSide-by-side spec comparison of two robots by slug, plus RoboHub's editorial verdict when available.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug_a | Yes | First robot slug. | |
| slug_b | Yes | Second robot slug. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist; description implies read-only behavior by stating comparison. However, does not explicitly disclose non-destructive nature or any constraints like rate limits or permissions.
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?
Single, concise sentence with no wasted words. Front-loads the core action and includes a relevant extra detail.
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?
For a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, description covers basic purpose but lacks detail on return format or what 'specs' means. Adequate but could be more complete.
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?
Schema already fully describes parameters (slug_a, slug_b) with 'First/Second robot slug.' Description adds 'by slug' which is consistent but does not enhance meaning beyond schema.
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?
Description clearly states verb 'compare', resource 'two robots', method 'by slug', and additional output 'editorial verdict'. Distinguishes from sibling tools that handle single robots or search.
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?
Implies use for comparing two known robots by slug, but no explicit when-to-use or alternatives listed. Sibling names are provided but not referenced.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
All five tools have distinct purposes: comparing two robots, fetching a single robot's details, listing categories, submitting vendor intros, and searching. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., compare_robots, get_robot, list_categories) with no mixing of conventions.
Five tools is well-scoped for a robot catalog covering search, retrieval, comparison, category browsing, and vendor intros. No tool feels excessive or missing.
Covers search, details, comparison, categories, and vendor intros well. Minor gap: no tool for listing all robots without a query, but search with empty query can likely fill this.