compare_tableEach option's value on every criterion of the US live 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It says the result is the full table of values across options and criteria, which indicates a read-style retrieval, but it does not describe output format, sorting, pagination, or any other behavioral details.
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 with no filler words. It front-loads the key content ('Each option's value on every criterion') and then clarifies the scope with 'the full table'.
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 tool with one optional parameter, the description adequately conveys what the table contains. However, with no annotations and no output schema, and with sibling tools that could be confused with this one, the lack of usage guidance and return-structure detail leaves meaningful gaps.
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 already documents the only parameter, 'option', with 100% coverage including the default behavior 'else all'. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, 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 states that the tool provides the full comparison table of every option's value on every criterion for a specific service comparison. It communicates the core resource and scope, though it does not use an explicit verb like 'returns' and does not directly contrast with the sibling tools.
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 the sibling tools such as compare_criteria or compare_options. The description only characterizes the table's content and does not mention alternatives or exclusions.
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.