compare_tableEach option's value on every criterion of the US field service software for electrical contractors 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what the output format looks like, or any side effects. It only describes content, not behavior.
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 concise sentence with no filler. The key point (full table of values) is front-loaded. It lacks structure but is appropriately brief for the simple tool.
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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description conveys the core purpose but omits details like the output format or how the optional parameter affects results. The schema covers the parameter, but the description does not elaborate on the return structure, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.
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 provides 100% coverage of the single parameter 'option' with a clear description ('one option's name, else all'). The tool description adds no additional meaning or context about parameter usage, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 the tool provides 'each option's value on every criterion' for the comparison, clearly identifying the resource (comparison table) and its scope. It hints at being the full table, which loosely distinguishes it from siblings like compare_criteria or compare_options, though it does not name them explicitly.
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 on when to use this tool versus the sibling comparison tools. The only differentiator is 'the full table,' which is implicit rather than explicit. There are no stated conditions or exclusions.
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: comparison data (criteria, options, table) and enquiry flow (describe, fields, submit). No overlap or ambiguity in tool roles.
Naming follows two patterns: comparison tools use verb-first (compare_*) while enquiry tools mostly use noun-first (enquiry_*) except submit_enquiry which is verb-first. Mixed conventions but still readable and predictable within each group.
Six tools is well-scoped for a comparison site with an enquiry submission flow. Each tool serves a necessary, distinct function without bloat.
The tool set covers the full user journey: exploring comparison data (criteria, options, full table) and submitting an enquiry (fields, description, submission). No obvious gaps in the core workflow.