compare_optionsThe options in the US live answering and virtual receptionist services 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, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the returned content and the optional tag filter, which is useful, but it does not state whether the call is read-only, how filtering behaves, ordering, or response shape.
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 with no filler. It front-loads the core resource and immediately lists the returned fields and the filtering option, though it is slightly awkward as a noun phrase rather than a verb-led sentence.
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 tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description is too thin. It omits how filterKey and filterValue relate, whether they must be used together, and the exact return structure, leaving important operational details to inference.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for the two undocumented parameters. It mentions 'optionally filtered by a tag value' but never explicitly maps filterKey and filterValue to that behavior or defines accepted values, leaving the agent to guess parameter usage.
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 identifies the resource (options in the US live answering and virtual receptionist services comparison) and the key data fields (name, what it is best for, tags). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like compare_criteria and compare_table by focusing on options, though it never names those alternatives or uses an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists'.
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 does not explain when to use this tool versus compare_criteria, compare_table, or the enquiry tools. It only implies that the tool returns comparison options, with optional tag filtering; there is no guidance on exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative selection.
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 target different aspects of the comparison data, while enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields, and submit_enquiry each handle a separate step of the enquiry workflow. No two tools overlap in a way that would cause misselection.
The naming mostly follows a consistent domain-prefix pattern: compare_* for the comparison data and enquiry_* for the enquiry flow. The outlier is submit_enquiry, which inverts the pattern to verb_noun instead of noun_prefix_noun, creating a minor deviation.
Six tools is well-scoped for this server's purpose: three tools cover the comparison aspect and three cover the enquiry process. Each tool earns its place, and the count feels neither sparse nor bloated.
The tool set provides complete coverage for the domain: comparison data (criteria, options, full table) and the full enquiry lifecycle (description, form fields, two-step submission). There are no obvious missing operations that would cause agent failures.