compare_optionsThe options in the Job management software for UK trades 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention optional filtering by tag value and the data fields, but it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what side effects exist, what the output looks like, or any error/edge-case behavior. This is thin coverage 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short sentence with no filler, so it is technically concise. However, it is under-specified rather than tightly informative, and the opening 'The options' is not an action-oriented or clarifying lead. It is acceptable but not exemplary.
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?
The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and minimal parameter documentation, so the description must carry more weight. It fails to explain the operation, parameter semantics, or when to choose this tool over its siblings, leaving a meaningful completeness gap even for a simple filtering tool.
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%, and both parameters are completely undocumented in the schema. The description mentions filtering by 'a tag value,' which hints at filterValue's purpose, but it never explains filterKey or the relationship between the two parameters. The description does not sufficiently compensate for the missing schema documentation.
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 names a resource ('options in the Job management software for UK trades comparison') and lists included fields, but it never states the action verb—whether the tool lists, retrieves, or compares options. It also does not distinguish itself from siblings like compare_criteria or compare_table, so the exact purpose remains vague.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as compare_criteria or compare_table. The only usage hint is the optional tag-value filtering, but there is no context about prerequisites, intended scenarios, 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.
The three compare_* tools are clearly separated by data role: criteria, options, and the full table. The enquiry_*/submit_enquiry tools similarly split schema/context/action with no overlapping purposes.
All names are snake_case and readable, but the compare_* group uses verb-first names while enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields step outside that pattern. submit_enquiry matches the verb-first style, so the inconsistency is minor.
Six tools is well-scoped: three cover the comparison data surface and three cover the enquiry workflow. No tool feels redundant and the count suits a focused niche comparison site.
The surface covers the full user journey: browse comparison criteria/options/table, inspect the enquiry form, and submit with explicit two-step consent. There are no obvious dead ends or missing core operations for this domain.