compare_optionsThe options in the Six routes to machine-readable bank transactions 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 full burden. It discloses that results can be filtered by a tag value, but it does not say whether this is a read-only lookup, what the default unfiltered output is, or how filtering behaves when both filterKey and filterValue are present or absent.
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 and gives the key content fields and filtering capability. It is compact, though the opening phrase is a bit clunky and could be tightened for scanning.
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 two undocumented optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and several comparison siblings, the description lacks essential context: what the output looks like, what filterKey/filterValue accept, and how this tool relates to compare_criteria and compare_table.
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% and neither parameter is explained. The description only hints that filtering is by tag value, leaving filterKey and filterValue undefined, their allowed values unknown, and the effect of zero required parameters unclear.
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 as the options within the Six routes comparison and lists the returned attributes (name, what it is best for, tags). It is clear enough, though it lacks an explicit verb and does not differentiate from compare_criteria or compare_table.
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 siblings such as compare_criteria or compare_table. The only usage hint is the optional tag filter, which is implicit and not enough to route an agent to the correct tool.
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 compare_* tools separate criteria, option metadata, and the full option-by-criterion table, so an agent can choose the right level of detail. The enquiry_* tools are also distinct: describe explains the process, fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the submission. There is slight potential overlap because compare_table contains the data that the other two compare tools also expose, but the descriptions make the boundaries clear enough.
All tool names use lowercase snake_case and the compare_* and enquiry_* prefixes provide some structure. However, the pattern is mixed: compare_criteria, compare_options, and compare_table are verb-first, while enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields are noun-first, and submit_enquiry is verb-first again. The names are readable but do not follow one predictable convention.
Six tools is a well-scoped size for this server. Each tool serves a clear purpose within the comparison and enquiry workflows, and there is no sense of bloat or thinness.
The comparison surface is complete: criteria, option metadata, and the full comparison table are all available. The enquiry workflow is also complete, covering the process description, field schema, and a two-step consent-based submission with confirmation token.