compare_tableEach option's value on every criterion of the UK motor trade insurance, by shape of cover comparison — the full table.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "compare_table"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| option | No | one option's name, else all |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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 content. It does not state that the operation is read-only, how results are returned, whether the optional 'option' parameter affects the result shape, or any side effects/pagination.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the core content. The phrase 'by shape of cover comparison' is slightly awkward and could be clearer, but there is no redundant filler.
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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately summarizes the returned table. However, it lacks details about the response format, the effect of the 'option' parameter, and any usage caveats, leaving modest 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 sole parameter is fully described in the schema ('one option's name, else all'), so schema coverage is 100% and baseline 3 applies. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond this, which is acceptable given the schema's clarity.
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: the full comparison table of each option's value on every criterion for UK motor trade insurance. It distinguishes from siblings like compare_criteria and compare_options by emphasizing the complete table, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'get' or 'list'.
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?
There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over compare_criteria, compare_options, or the enquiry tools. The phrase 'the full table' weakly implies use for complete data, but no explicit conditions or alternatives are stated.
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.