compare_tableEach option's value on every criterion of the UK telephone answering and virtual receptionist services comparison — the full table.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| option | No | one option's name, else all |
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?
The description does add behavioral context beyond the tool name by stating the table covers 'every criterion' and is 'the full table.' However, there are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden for disclosing side effects, read-only status, filtering behavior, or output format; none of these are explicitly addressed.
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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the table's content and ends with a clarifying 'the full table.' The em-dash restatement is slightly redundant but not wasteful, and the sentence 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?
Given only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description plus schema is adequate for making a basic call. However, it does not explain how compare_table relates to sibling tools such as compare_criteria and compare_options, and it lacks any output-shape or safety details that would compensate for the missing annotations.
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 sole parameter 'option' is already fully described in the schema with 'one option's name, else all' and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra meaning to the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 resource as the comparison table and specifies its content: 'Each option's value on every criterion.' It also signals comprehensiveness through 'the full table,' which helps distinguish it from compare_criteria and compare_options. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'returns' or 'lists,' so the action is only implied.
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 phrase 'the full table' weakly implies that this tool is for retrieving the complete comparison rather than a subset, but the description does not explicitly say when to use it versus compare_criteria or compare_options. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so routing guidance is mostly inferred.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: compare_criteria, compare_options, and compare_table cover different aspects of the comparison data, while enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields, and submit_enquiry handle the enquiry process. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: compare_* for comparison-related tools and enquiry_* for enquiry-related tools. The naming is predictable and uniform throughout.
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of providing comparison data and enabling enquiries. Each tool earns its place, and the count feels appropriate without being sparse or overloaded.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle: users can retrieve the comparison criteria, options, and full table, then understand the enquiry process, get required fields, and submit an enquiry with consent. No obvious gaps exist for the server's stated domain.