compare_optionsThe options in the Business valuation report types, by what they are accepted for comparison (name, what it is best for, tags), optionally filtered by a tag value.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filterKey | No | ||
| filterValue | No |
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention that results can be optionally filtered by a tag value and lists included fields, but it leaves unclear what the tool returns, whether it performs a comparison, and how the filter behaves.
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 short, but the phrasing is grammatically awkward and the core operation is missing. Brevity does not help when the single sentence still leaves the tool's purpose ambiguous.
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?
The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and only vague parameter documentation, so the description needs to explain return values, filtering semantics, and when to choose this over sibling tools. It covers almost none of these, leaving the context incomplete.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify the parameters. It only hints at filtering by 'a tag value', which likely maps to filterValue, but says nothing about filterKey, its possible values, or the relationship between the two parameters.
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 begins with 'The options', which essentially restates the title and does not use a clear verb like 'list' or 'retrieve'. It identifies a resource ('options in the Business valuation report types') and some fields, but an agent cannot be certain whether the tool returns options, compares them, or filters them.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus siblings such as compare_criteria, compare_table, or enquiry_describe. The only usage hint is the optional tag filter, but there is no exclusion or alternative-routing information.
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.
The three compare_* tools cleanly separate criteria, options, and the full table, while the enquiry_* tools distinguish describing the process, listing fields, and submitting. There is no meaningful functional overlap between any two tools.
compare_criteria, compare_options, and compare_table follow a consistent verb_noun pattern, and enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields share an enquiry_ prefix. submit_enquiry breaks that prefix pattern slightly, but the names remain clear and predictable overall.
Six tools cover two well-defined workflows without redundancy: comparison of report types and submission of an enquiry. Each tool has a distinct, necessary role.
The comparison tools provide the criteria schema, available options, and full value matrix, covering the comparison workflow end-to-end. The enquiry tools explain the process, provide the field schema, and support the two-step consent/confirmation submission, leaving no obvious dead ends.