compare_tableEach option's value on every criterion of the Who may broker the sale of a US private company 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, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the output semantics: a complete cross of options by criteria. It does not mention filters, formatting, or side effects, but the tool's core behavior as a full-table display is conveyed.
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 the key scope placed first: 'each option's value on every criterion.' The trailing 'full table' is slightly redundant with the title, but there is no unnecessary elaboration.
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 one-parameter table lookup with no output schema, the description conveys the essential return concept. It does not explicitly state that omitting 'option' returns all options, but that is fully covered by the schema, and the sibling tool names help clarify the table's role.
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 already fully describes the only parameter ('one option's name, else all'), and the description adds no meaningful operational detail beyond that. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly identifies the tool's output as the full comparison table—every option's value on every criterion. The phrase 'full table' distinguishes it from sibling tools like compare_criteria and compare_options, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'get' or 'return'.
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 'full table' phrasing implies this tool is for seeing the entire comparison rather than a single criterion or option. However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool instead of compare_criteria or compare_options, and it gives no exclusions or alternative conditions.
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.