compare_tableEach option's value on every criterion of the Who can prepare a UK crypto tax position, compared on capability 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only describes the table's content, not how it behaves, what the output looks like, or any side effects. It is not misleading, but it 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 short and mostly front-loaded with 'Each option's value on every criterion', but the phrasing becomes awkward and confusing with 'of the Who can prepare a UK crypto tax position, compared on capability comparison'. It is concise but not cleanly structured.
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 optional-parameter tool, the description gives a basic sense of what is returned, but it does not clarify the phrase 'capability comparison' or why it matters, and the lack of an output schema leaves return-format details unexplained. Adequate but with gaps.
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 single parameter 'option' is already fully described in the schema with 'one option's name, else all', so the description adds little beyond that. The description's mention of 'each option' and 'full table' slightly reinforces the filtering behavior, but the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 the tool returns a full comparison table showing each option's value on every criterion, which is a specific and identifiable function. It is clear enough to understand the resource being compared, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from 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?
No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus compare_criteria or compare_options. The phrase 'the full table' hints at a complete view, but the description does not state exclusions, alternatives, or selection 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 maps to a clearly distinct output: criteria, options, full table, enquiry explanation, enquiry fields, and submission. Even the three compare tools are unlikely to be confused because their descriptions specify different levels of detail.
The compare_* tools follow a consistent verb-noun pattern, but the enquiry tools mix conventions: enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields use an enquiry_ prefix while submit_enquiry leads with the verb. This makes the naming pattern less predictable, though still readable.
Six tools is a well-scoped count for this server's two clear purposes: showing a comparison and submitting an enquiry. Each tool has a distinct role and none feels redundant.
The comparison side covers criteria, options, and the full table, while the enquiry side covers explanation, fields, and a two-step submission flow with consent confirmation. No obvious missing operation is needed for the stated site workflow.