compare_tableEach option's value on every criterion of the The covers a UK self build needs 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does state the core behavior—returning each option's value on every criterion in a full comparison table—which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not describe format, ordering, default behavior when option is omitted, or whether the result is a matrix versus a structured object.
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, but its grammar is severely broken: 'of the The covers a UK self build needs comparison' is confusing and unprofessional. Important context like the parameter's effect and sibling distinctions is absent, so the brevity is not effective conciseness.
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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and sibling tools that overlap in purpose, this description leaves too much unstated. It does not clarify how the optional 'option' parameter changes the returned table, when to choose this tool over alternatives, or what the output looks like. The core idea is present, but the broken sentence makes the description unreliable for correct invocation.
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 description coverage is 100%, and the single parameter 'option' is already documented as 'one option's name, else all.' The description adds no extra meaning about how the option parameter filters the table or what value format is expected. This meets the baseline but does not exceed 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 conveys that the tool returns a comparison table showing each option's value on every criterion, and the phrase 'the full table' hints at an all-encompassing view. However, the sentence is garbled ('of the The covers a UK self build needs comparison') and lacks a clear, grammatical statement of the operation. It does not meaningfully differentiate from siblings like compare_options or compare_criteria.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus compare_criteria or compare_options. The word 'full' weakly implies a comprehensive view, but no conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing are provided. An agent would have to infer usage from the tool name and schema.
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.