What is compared
compare_criteriaThe criteria and any filters of the US 409A valuation providers and cap table platforms comparison.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
site
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
C2.4/5.0
Behavior1/5
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 explaining behavior. It merely names the content ('criteria and any filters') and does not disclose whether the tool performs a read operation, returns data, requires authentication, has side effects, or provides any output format. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with domain context, but it is a grammatically incomplete noun phrase rather than a clear instructional statement. It earns no extra credit for efficiency because it sacrifices clarity for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations and an output schema, the description should provide more operational context. It leaves unclear what the tool actually returns, how an agent should use the result, and how it fits alongside sibling tools. The description is too thin for reliable tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics that the description needs to explain. The baseline of 4 is appropriate because the description is not required to compensate for missing parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies a specific resource—the criteria and filters of a US 409A valuation providers and cap table platforms comparison—so the subject is clear enough. However, it lacks a verb and does not explicitly state what the tool does with these criteria (e.g., returns, displays, exports), leaving the operation implied rather than stated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 its siblings like compare_options or compare_table. The description does not state conditions, exclusions, or how to choose between the comparison-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
The compare_* tools are clearly separated: criteria defines the axes, options lists the entities, and table joins them into the full matrix. The enquiry_* tools are equally distinct: describe explains the process, fields defines the schema, and submit_enquiry executes the two-step submission.
Naming Consistency4/5
The compare_* tools follow a consistent prefix convention, and enquiry_describe/enquiry_fields follow the same noun-first pattern. submit_enquiry breaks that pattern by leading with a verb instead of the enquiry_ prefix, though it remains clear and predictable.
Tool Count5/5
Six tools is well-scoped for this server's purpose: three tools cover the comparison matrix and three cover the enquiry workflow. Each tool earns its place without redundancy or bloat.
Completeness5/5
The comparison surface is complete: an agent can discover criteria, filter options, and view the full evaluation table. The enquiry workflow is also complete, covering explanation, schema discovery, validation, consent, and confirmation-token submission.