compare_optionsThe options in the UK payroll software for small and medium employers comparison (name, what it is best for, tags), optionally filtered by a tag value.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filterKey | No | ||
| filterValue | No |
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 present, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses that results can be filtered by a tag value and indicates the content fields, but it does not state whether the tool is read-only, how the filter behaves (exact match, partial, absent behavior), what happens with no parameters, or the shape of the output.
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 brief and contains useful identifiers, but it is structured as an awkward noun phrase with no front-loaded verb, and 'The options' repeats the title without adding operational clarity. It is under-specified rather than cleanly concise.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and two undocumented parameters, the description is too thin: it names the subject and one filter detail but omits the return shape, full filter semantics, and how this option list relates to the sibling comparison tools.
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?
Schema coverage is 0% and neither parameter has a description. The text only clarifies filterValue as a tag value and leaves filterKey unexplained, so an agent cannot confidently know what to pass as filterKey or what tag values are valid.
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 ('options in the UK payroll software... comparison') and lists returned fields (name, what it is best for, tags), so an agent knows what the tool is about. However, it is a noun phrase rather than a statement with an action verb: it never explicitly says it lists, returns, or compares options, which leaves the core operation implied.
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 compare_options versus compare_criteria, compare_table, or the enquiry tools. It only mentions an optional tag filter, with no exclusions, alternatives, or prerequisites.
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 three compare_* tools are clearly separated: criteria lists dimensions, options lists choices, and table provides the cross-product. The enquiry tools are also distinct: describe explains the process, fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the action.
Most names follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern like compare_criteria and submit_enquiry. enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields deviate slightly by leading with the noun, but the overall convention is still readable and predictable.
Six tools is well-scoped for a comparison-and-enquiry site. Each tool serves a clear purpose: three for exploring the comparison data and three for understanding and submitting the enquiry.
The tool set fully covers the user journey: discover comparison criteria, see available options, view the full comparison table, then understand, build, and submit an enquiry. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated domain.