compare_optionsThe options in the Ways to get an SR&ED claim prepared, compared on what is checkable 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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions comparison fields and optional filtering but does not describe return format, ordering, side effects, or whether this is a read-only operation.
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 and not overly long, but the phrasing is awkward ('what is checkable comparison') and the structure could be clearer. It earns its place but not elegantly.
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 minimal annotation support, the description should clarify what the tool returns, what filterKey means, and how it differs from sibling compare tools. Those details are missing, leaving the agent to infer too much.
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 explain the parameters. It mentions filtering by tag value, which plausibly maps to filterValue, but filterKey is left unexplained and no valid values are given.
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 the resource (options for getting an SR&ED claim prepared), the action (compared), and the comparison fields (name, best-for, tags). It is specific enough to be understood, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like compare_criteria or compare_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?
There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'optionally filtered by a tag value' gives a usage hint, but no when-not conditions or sibling-tool distinctions are provided.
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: the three compare tools focus on criteria, options, and the full comparison table respectively, while the three enquiry tools cover description, fields, and submission. There is no ambiguity between them.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (compare_criteria, submit_enquiry), but the enquiry_* tools use a noun_verb pattern (enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields), which is a minor deviation from an otherwise consistent style.
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of comparing SR&ED claim preparation options and submitting enquiries. Each tool earns its place without redundancy or bloat.
The tool set provides complete coverage for the domain: comparison is fully covered with criteria, options, and a full table, and the enquiry workflow is complete with description, field definitions, and a two-step submission process. No obvious gaps exist.