compare_optionsThe options in the Arrangements for getting a formulation made 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what side effects exist, or the format of the response. The only behavioral hint is optional filtering, which is insufficient.
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 convoluted sentence that is not front-loaded. Key information like 'optionally filtered' appears at the end, and the phrasing 'Arrangements for getting a formulation made comparison' is unclear. It is short but not concise in meaning.
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 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what 'Arrangements' refers to, what the options represent, or the expected return structure. An agent would struggle to call this tool correctly without additional context.
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 compensate for the two parameters, filterKey and filterValue. It only hints that filtering is by tag value, but does not explicitly map filterKey to a tag name or explain how they interact. This adds minimal value beyond the raw schema.
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 states what data is returned (name, what it is best for, tags) but lacks a clear verb like 'list' or 'get'. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like compare_criteria or compare_table, and the phrase 'Arrangements for getting a formulation made comparison' is confusing. The purpose is vague and not actionable.
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 mentions optional filtering by tag value, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as compare_criteria or compare_table. There are no exclusions or conditions, so an agent gets no direction on selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.