Compare two file formats (by slug, extension, or filename) — extensions, category, and a verdict on when to choose each. Use for 'X vs Y' / 'difference between X and Y'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| a | Yes | ||
| b | Yes |
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. It discloses the operation (comparison), accepted input forms (slug, extension, or filename), and the output contents (extensions, category, verdict). It does not mention error handling or edge cases, but for a simple comparison tool this is adequate.
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, front-loaded with the core purpose and result, and ends with concrete usage examples. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
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?
Given the low complexity (2 simple string params, no annotations, no output schema), the description fully covers purpose, accepted input formats, output contents, and usage context. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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?
The schema provides no descriptions for parameters a and b (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It states that both parameters are file formats identified by slug, extension, or filename, giving meaningful context for both params. It does not separately describe each param, but since they are symmetric inputs this is sufficient.
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 uses the specific verb 'Compare' with the resource 'two file formats' and clearly states what is produced: extensions, category, and a verdict. It distinguishes itself from siblings like identify_format (singular identification) and convert_file (conversion) by focusing on side-by-side comparison.
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 explicitly says 'Use for X vs Y / difference between X and Y', giving clear context for when the tool is appropriate. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a full 5 but is still strong.
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.
get_definition and identify_format both cover file formats, and identify_format also lists conversions, overlapping with convert_file. However, each tool has a distinct primary purpose (definition lookup vs. file identification vs. conversion discovery), so the boundaries are reasonably clear but not perfect.
All tools use a verb_noun pattern (compare_formats, convert_file, get_company, get_definition, identify_format, list_design_jobs) with the exception of 'search' which is a bare verb. This minor deviation is acceptable.
7 tools is within the ideal 3-15 range. Each tool covers a distinct aspect of the reference domain, from search to specific lookups to job listings, without redundancy.
The server covers the stated domain well: search for full-text, get_definition for terms/technologies/sensors, identify_format and compare_formats and convert_file for file formats, get_company for companies, and list_design_jobs for careers. The only notable gap is a dedicated tool for standards or sensors, but get_definition and search cover them adequately.
