compare_optionsThe options in the Who may broker the sale of a US private company 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 behavioral burden. It discloses that filtering is optional and indicates the output fields, which is useful. However, it does not state what happens when no filter is provided, whether this is a read-only operation, or how filtering behaves with the filterKey/filterValue parameters.
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 compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core resource and adds filtering context efficiently, though the awkward phrase 'The options in...' detracts slightly from structure.
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?
Given no output schema, no annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and several sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It misses parameter semantics, usage distinctions, and behavioral defaults, leaving an agent to infer too much when deciding to invoke it.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented filterKey and filterValue parameters. The phrase 'optionally filtered by a tag value' hints at filterValue's purpose, but filterKey remains unexplained, and the relationship between the two parameters is not clarified.
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 clearly: the options in a specific comparison, including the fields returned (name, what it is best for, tags). It is understandable and specific enough for an agent to know what the tool returns, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve' and does not contrast with sibling tools.
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 gives a context ('Who may broker the sale of a US private company comparison') and mentions optional tag filtering, but it provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like compare_criteria or compare_table, and no exclusions or prerequisites.
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 targets a clearly separate concern: comparison criteria, comparison options, the full comparison table, the enquiry explanation, the enquiry field schema, and submission. There is no real overlap or ambiguous boundary between any of the six tools.
The compare_* and enquiry_* prefixes give some structure, but the pattern is inconsistent: compare_criteria and compare_table use a verb-like prefix while enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields use noun-first naming, and submit_enquiry breaks the enquiry_ prefix convention. The names remain readable but do not follow a single predictable pattern.
Six tools is a well-scoped count for this server's purpose: three tools expose a comparison, two describe the enquiry form and flow, and one submits the enquiry. Nothing feels redundant or missing at the tool-count level.
The server covers the full apparent lifecycle for its purpose: users can inspect the comparison criteria, available options, the full comparison table, understand what submitting an enquiry does, see all required fields, and submit with a two-step confirmation. No obvious dead ends or missing operations exist for the stated domain.