compare_optionsThe options in the US field service management platforms 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 burden and it does disclose the optional tag-value filter and the fields returned. However, it omits behavioral details such as whether this is a read-only operation, how filtering behaves when filterKey is absent, or what the output structure looks like.
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 that front-loads the resource and then presents the returned fields and the optional filter. It wastes no words, though the title 'The options' adds no value.
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 simple listing tool with two optional parameters, the description is minimally viable, but the lack of an output schema and annotations raises the burden. It does not explain filterKey semantics, possible filter values, or how results are ordered/returned, leaving some ambiguity for an agent selecting and invoking the tool.
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 undocumented filterKey and filterValue parameters. It explains that filtering is by a 'tag value', but it does not clarify what filterKey should be, whether both parameters are needed together, or what values are accepted.
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 specific resource ('the options in the US field service management platforms comparison') and names the fields included (name, what it is best for, tags). It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like compare_criteria and compare_table, though it is phrased as a noun phrase rather than an explicit action verb like 'retrieves' or 'lists'.
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 guidance about when to use compare_options versus the sibling tools compare_criteria, compare_table, or the enquiry tools. The only usage hint is that filtering is optional, but no context or alternative-selection criteria is 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.
The comparison tools are cleanly separated by role: criteria are the dimensions, options are the entities, and the table is the cross-product. The enquiry tools are also distinct: describe explains the process, fields gives the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the action. There is no meaningful overlap between any pair.
The comparison tools follow a consistent compare_ prefix with noun objects, while the enquiry tools are mostly enquiry_ prefixed except for submit_enquiry. This grouping is recognizable but not a single uniform verb_noun pattern across the entire set. The deviation is minor and does not cause confusion.
At six tools, the server is tightly scoped to its two core functions: running a comparison and handling enquiries. Every tool has a distinct purpose and none feel redundant or missing. The count is appropriate for a focused site-specific server.
The comparison surface fully covers the domain: criteria, options, and the full results table. The enquiry surface covers the entire lifecycle from describing the process and field schema to the two-step confirmation submission. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated functionality.