compare_tableEach option's value on every criterion of the Ways a contractor can buy search marketing 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the tool exposes a read-only table of values and that the result is the full comparison rather than a subset. It does not explicitly describe side effects, output format, or the effect of the optional option parameter, but nothing in the description is misleading.
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 with no filler words, and the core idea—full table of option values by criterion—is front-loaded. It is concise, though the phrasing 'Ways a contractor can buy search marketing comparison' is grammatically awkward and slightly detracts from clarity.
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?
The tool is simple: one optional parameter, no nested objects, and no output schema. The description adequately communicates the table's content but does not mention the optional option parameter, output shape, or how this tool relates to compare_criteria and compare_options. It is minimally viable but leaves some selection context to inference.
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 covers the single parameter fully with 'one option's name, else all,' so the description does not need to explain it further. The description adds no additional parameter context, but the schema is sufficient, keeping this at the baseline of 3.
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 (the comparison table) and specifies its contents: each option's value on every criterion. The phrase 'full table' signals that this is an unfiltered cross-tabulation, which helps distinguish it from compare_criteria and compare_options. However, it lacks an explicit action verb such as 'returns' or 'displays,' and the wording is somewhat awkward.
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 provided about when to use this tool versus compare_criteria or compare_options. The 'full table' phrase weakly implies a complete view, but there is no explicit condition, exclusion, or mention of alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the tool's role among its siblings.
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 six tools split cleanly into two clear groups: three comparison-read tools (criteria, options, table) and three enquiry-flow tools (describe, fields, submit). Each tool has a distinct responsibility, and the descriptions make it obvious which one to call for a given need.
The naming is mostly consistent and predictable, using clear prefixes like compare_ and enquiry_. The main deviation is that submit_enquiry is verb-first while compare_criteria, compare_options, and compare_table are noun-first, which is a minor but noticeable inconsistency.
Six tools is a well-scoped size for a server that covers a comparison view plus an enquiry submission flow. Each tool earns its place, and there is no redundancy or bloat.
The comparison surface is complete: agents can see criteria, options, and the full value table. The enquiry surface is also complete with an orientation tool, a schema tool, and a two-step submission tool, so there are no obvious dead ends.