compare_tableEach option's value on every criterion of the UK garage management software for MOT stations and workshops 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 bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the content (a full table of values) but omits any behavioral details such as output format, potential size, read-only nature, or side effects. For a tool that likely returns a large dataset, this is insufficient.
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 that directly conveys the core content without wasted words. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded with the essential information. However, it could be slightly clearer as a standalone sentence rather than a noun phrase.
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 provides the basic content but lacks context on how the 'option' parameter affects the result, what the criteria and options are, or how the table is structured. Given the sibling tools, more context about relationships would improve completeness, but the description is not misleading.
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 fully describes the single parameter 'option' with 'one option's name, else all' (100% schema coverage). The tool description adds no additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high coverage but does not enhance it.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it provides a comparison table showing each option's value on every criterion, specific to UK garage management software for MOT stations and workshops. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like compare_criteria and compare_options by emphasizing the full table rather than a focused view.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools or suggest when compare_table is preferred over compare_criteria or compare_options. Agents are left to infer usage from the name alone.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.