compare_tableEach option's value on every criterion of the US live answering and virtual receptionist services, by capability 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what content the table contains but does not disclose behaviors like read-only status, error handling, how the option parameter narrows results, or what the output actually looks like.
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 sentence that conveys the core content of the table. It is efficient, though the trailing phrase 'by capability comparison — the full table' adds some redundancy after 'every criterion.'
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 one-parameter read-only table tool, the description gives a reasonable sense of the return content. However, without annotations or an output schema, it leaves uncertainty about the exact return format and how sibling tools relate to this one.
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 description coverage is 100%, and the option parameter is already documented as 'one option's name, else all.' The description reinforces the full-table concept but adds no new semantic meaning beyond the 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?
The description specifies that the tool presents each option's value on every criterion, making it clear the result is a full comparison table. This is a clear verb+resource pairing, though it does not explicitly contrast with compare_criteria or compare_options beyond the phrase 'full table'.
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 'full table' implies this tool is for a comprehensive view, but the description does not explicitly say when to use compare_table versus compare_criteria or compare_options. Usage is implied rather than directly stated.
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 tools split into two clear groups: comparison tools (criteria, options, table) and enquiry tools (describe, fields, submit). The compare_* tools all serve the same comparison domain but each has a distinct output type, so an agent can pick correctly with careful reading.
Most tool names follow a clear snake_case pattern with a domain prefix: compare_criteria, compare_options, compare_table, enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields. The one deviation is submit_enquiry, which is verb-first rather than enquiry-prefixed, but the inconsistency is minor and the names remain predictable.
Six tools is well-scoped for this server: three support exploring the comparison data and three support the enquiry submission workflow. Each tool has a clear role without unnecessary bloat or missing essentials.
The comparison side fully covers criteria, options, and the full data table, while the enquiry side covers explanation, field schema, and the two-step submission flow. There are no obvious dead ends: an agent can introduce the service, compare options, and complete an enquiry from start to finish.