compare_tableEach option's value on every criterion of the Six routes to machine-readable bank transactions 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 full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only describes table content. It does not clarify output orientation, ordering, what happens when option is omitted, or any side effects. 'The full table' adds some context but is minimal.
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 wasted words and conveys the core content directly. The phrasing is slightly convoluted, but it is concise and front-loaded with the key idea.
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 gives a reasonable picture of what is returned. However, it omits behavioral specifics and sibling-tool context, so an agent still has to guess about the exact output format and when this tool is the right choice.
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 documents the only parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little semantic value beyond the schema: it implies the table contains all options/criteria, but 'option' semantics are already clear from the schema.
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 what the tool returns—a full table showing each option's value on every criterion in the Six routes comparison. This is specific and conveys the resource clearly. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like compare_criteria or compare_options, though 'full table' hints at the difference.
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 about when to use this tool versus compare_criteria or compare_options. The description does not mention alternatives or provide decision criteria. A caller must infer from tool names, which is weak support.
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.