Look up a KYMA encyclopedia compare page (not the T3/C6 shop /compare). Examples: 432-vs-440, 528-vs-432, rife-vs-solfeggio, audio-vs-pemf.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| a | No | Left entity (optional if pair given) | |
| b | No | Right entity (optional if pair given) | |
| pair | No | Compare id such as 432-vs-440 or audio-vs-pemf |
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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description implies a read-only encyclopedia lookup, which is helpful, and the 'not the T3/C6 shop /compare' warning adds behavioral context by steering away from a similarly named feature. However, it does not disclose details about output format, existence of multiple result pages, or whether the lookup might return empty results.
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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence carries the main intent and the disambiguation, and the second provides immediately useful examples. Every word earns its place.
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 lookup tool with fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool is for, what it is not, and how to form the lookup parameter. It could mention what happens when only a or b is given, but the note that either a and b or pair can be used is already embedded in the parameter descriptions, so the context is sufficient.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds meaning by giving concrete example values ('432-vs-440, 528-vs-432, rife-vs-solfeggio, audio-vs-pemf') and clarifying the optionality of a and b when a pair is given, which goes beyond the schema's descriptions.
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 clearly identifies the tool as looking up a KYMA encyclopedia compare page with concrete examples (432-vs-440, 528-vs-432), making the core action and subject obvious. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools beyond disambiguating from the T3/C6 shop /compare, which is a useful contrast but not exhaustive.
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 gives an explicit exclusion: it is not the T3/C6 shop /compare, and provides example inputs that clarify what kind of compare pages are intended. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools, but the contrast with the shop comparison plus examples is enough for an agent to route correctly.
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.
Each tool maps to a mostly distinct action: fetching exact frequency sets, searching, building play links, checking hardware requirements, and listing guides. Minor overlap exists between get_frequency and get_play_link since get_frequency already returns a play link, but descriptions clarify the different entry points.
Most names follow a clear verb_noun pattern: compare_frequencies, get_frequency, get_hz_page, get_play_link, list_healing_guides, list_popular, search_content, search_frequencies. A few exceptions like about_kyma and headphones_or_pemf break the pattern slightly but are still readable and predictable.
Ten tools is well-scoped for a frequency wellness content server. Each tool serves a distinct part of the user journey: product awareness, research, search, frequency lookup, playback, and hardware guidance.
The surface covers the core read-only workflows well: discovering frequencies, looking up canonical pages, comparing options, getting playback links, and finding healing guides. A minor gap is the lack of a dedicated tool for fetching a full healing guide body, but search/list results include URLs and summaries, so agents can still work around it.