compare_tableEach option's value on every criterion of the Ways to get an SR&ED claim prepared, compared on what is checkable 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?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It hints that the tool returns a full comparison table, but it does not state what happens when option is omitted, what the table contains, or whether this is a pure read 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 short, which is good, but the single sentence is tangled and redundant, repeating 'comparison' and 'compare' in confusing ways. It is not cleanly structured or easily parsable.
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?
With one optional parameter and no output schema, the description should at least explain the full-table result and how the option parameter affects it. The current text is too vague to allow an agent to confidently invoke the tool or differentiate it from sibling tools.
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 'one option's name, else all,' giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds little beyond that and does not clarify accepted option values or how 'all' behaves.
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 refers to 'each option's value on every criterion' and 'the full table,' so it gestures at a comparison resource. But the phrasing 'compared on what is checkable comparison' is garbled, and it does not clearly state the verb or distinguish itself from compare_criteria and compare_options.
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 call compare_table instead of compare_criteria or compare_options. The optional option parameter suggests a way to narrow the result, but the description never explains this or any selection 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 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.