What is compared
compare_criteriaThe criteria and any filters of the UK garage management software for MOT stations and workshops comparison.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
site
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
C2.3/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, yet the description discloses no behavioral traits: it does not say whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, whether it filters data, or any side effects. The description carries the full burden and fails to address it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only one sentence, which is economical, but the phrasing is awkward and ambiguous ('of the UK garage management software for MOT stations and workshops comparison'). It is short but not clearly structured enough to convey a precise meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description needed to explain what the tool produces or how it behaves. It only names the subject matter, leaving return format, behavior, and integration with sibling tools completely unaddressed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so there is nothing for the description to explain. The mention of 'criteria and any filters' adds slight contextual meaning, though it refers to the tool's content rather than inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies the subject matter ('criteria and any filters of the UK garage management software for MOT stations and workshops comparison') but lacks an explicit verb such as 'returns', 'shows', or 'defines'. It partially distinguishes itself from siblings by naming 'criteria' vs 'options' or 'table', but does not state the action the tool performs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool over its siblings, no context for the comparison workflow, and no exclusions or alternatives. An agent would have to infer usage solely from the tool name and title.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
The compare_* tools are clearly distinct: criteria, options, and the full table each target a different aspect of the comparison data. The enquiry_* tools also separate explanation, schema, and submission. No two tools appear to do the same thing.
Naming Consistency4/5
All names use snake_case and are grouped into compare_ and enquiry_ prefixes, which is readable and predictable. The main deviation is enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields placing the noun first, while submit_enquiry and compare_* follow verb_first, but this is minor and does not cause confusion.
Tool Count5/5
Six tools is a well-scoped set for this server: three tools cover the comparison table surface and three cover the enquiry flow. Every tool earns its place with no redundant or filler tools.
Completeness5/5
The comparison domain is fully covered: users can list criteria, list options, and view the full criteria-by-option table. The enquiry flow is also complete with an explainer, field schema, and a two-step submit process including consent and confirmation.