compare_tableEach option's value on every criterion of the US HVAC field service management platforms 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 behavioral disclosure burden. It does communicate the return scope — all options and all criteria — and the 'full table' phrasing implies a read-only retrieval, but it does not describe output format, default behavior beyond the schema, or error handling. This is acceptable for a simple tool but not rich.
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 focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core idea — each option's value on every criterion — and the closing 'the full table' reinforces completeness without being redundant.
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 and no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned. The schema covers the parameter, so nothing essential is missing for correct invocation, though a brief pointer to sibling tools would improve it further.
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 provides 100% coverage of the single 'option' parameter with 'one option's name, else all'. The description adds no further parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 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 defines what the tool returns: a full matrix of every option's value on every criterion for the US HVAC comparison. This distinguishes it from siblings like compare_criteria and compare_options, which likely return individual dimensions rather than the complete table.
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 implies this tool is for retrieving the full comparison table, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of compare_criteria or compare_options. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, so the agent must infer usage from the sibling names and context.
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 role: the three compare_* tools separate criteria, options, and the full matrix, while the three enquiry_* tools separate process explanation, field schema, and submission. There is no meaningful overlap or risk of selecting the wrong tool for a task.
Naming is not fully consistent: compare_criteria, compare_options, and compare_table all follow a verb_noun pattern, but enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields reverse the order or use noun phrases, while submit_enquiry returns to verb_noun. The conventions are readable but mixed across the two functional groups.
Six tools is a well-scoped count for the server's purpose: three tools cover the comparison data surface and three cover the enquiry workflow. Each tool earns its place without redundancy or bloat.
The tool set fully covers the site's apparent domain: retrieving comparison criteria, options, and the full comparison table, plus understanding and submitting an enquiry with a documented two-step consent flow. No obvious dead ends or missing operations are apparent for the stated purpose.