compare_optionsThe options in the Every source of UK school term dates, compared 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 provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only reveals that results are optionally filtered by a tag value and does not state whether the operation is read-only, what output shape to expect, or how the comparison is computed. This is under-disclosing, though not contradictory.
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 poorly structured and hard to parse. The phrase 'compared comparison' is redundant and confusing, and the useful details about fields and filtering are buried behind an awkward lead-in.
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 the sibling tools, missing output schema, and sparse parameter documentation, this description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how filterKey and filterValue interact, or how compare_options differs from compare_criteria and compare_table. It provides only a fragment of the needed context.
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 provides two bare string parameters with 0% description coverage. The description weakly explains filterValue by mentioning 'filtered by a tag value', but filterKey is never explained, and there are no formats, allowed values, or defaults. It does not compensate for the schema's silence.
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 is grammatically garbled ('The options in the Every source of UK school term dates, compared comparison') and never states a clear verb such as 'list' or 'compare'. It mentions fields (name, best for, tags) and optional tag filtering, so it is not a pure tautology, but an agent cannot confidently determine what 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to choose compare_options over siblings like compare_criteria, compare_table, or the enquiry_* tools. The only usage hint is the optional tag filter, with no criteria, exclusions, or alternative routing.
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 separated into criteria, options, and the full matrix, and the enquiry_* tools split process explanation, schema, and submission. There is minor overlap potential between compare_criteria and compare_table since the table also includes criteria, but descriptions make the intended use distinguishable.
compare_criteria, compare_options, and compare_table follow a consistent verb_noun pattern, while enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields put the noun first and submit_enquiry uses verb_noun again. The mixed ordering is still readable, but the naming is not fully systematic.
Six tools is well-scoped for a server covering both a comparison view and an enquiry submission workflow. Each tool supports a distinct step without redundancy or bloat.
The comparison side covers criteria, options, and the full result table, while the enquiry side covers explanation, field discovery, and two-step submission. Minor gaps exist, such as no way to check an enquiry's status or resend the confirmation email, but they are not essential to the stated workflow.