compare_tableEach option's value on every criterion of the UK dental practice management systems certified for NHS claims 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 states that the tool returns a full table of values, but it does not disclose the effect of the option parameter, the output format, or whether filtering changes the result. This is thin 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 a single compact sentence with no filler. The 'full table' appositive adds clarity, though the long modifying phrase about UK dental practice management systems makes the sentence somewhat dense.
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 tool, the description plus schema is minimally adequate: it names the table contents and the schema documents the parameter. But without annotations or an output schema, and with no usage or behavior detail, an agent is left to infer important details about filtering and return format.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'each option's value,' which loosely aligns with the option parameter, but it adds no new detail about how the parameter behaves beyond the schema's 'one option's name, else all.'
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 as a full comparison table of options against criteria for UK dental practice management systems, and the phrase 'the full table' differentiates it from sibling tools like compare_criteria and compare_options. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists,' so purpose is clear but slightly indirect.
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 'the full table' implies this tool is for viewing the complete matrix rather than individual criteria or options, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus compare_criteria or compare_options, and no exclusions are 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 are clearly separated into two groups: comparison (criteria, options, table) and enquiry (describe, fields, submit). Within each group, each tool has a distinct purpose with no overlap, making it easy for an agent to select the right one.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (compare_criteria, compare_options, compare_table, submit_enquiry), but enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields reverse the order. While readable and predictable, this minor inconsistency prevents a perfect score.
Six tools is well-scoped for the server's purpose of comparing dental software and submitting enquiries. Each tool covers a necessary function without redundancy or bloat.
The tool surface fully covers the core workflow: retrieving comparison data (criteria, options, full table) and handling the enquiry process (description, fields, submission). No obvious gaps exist for the stated domain.