Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
uk-schools-mcp

uk-schools-mcp

by mkb-123
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

compare_schools

Compare multiple UK schools by URN to view side-by-side key facts including type, phase, pupil numbers, capacity, admissions policy, and Ofsted info.

Instructions

Compare multiple schools side-by-side by their URNs. Shows key facts for each school including type, phase, pupil numbers, capacity, admissions policy, and Ofsted info.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "urns": "<urns>"
    },
    "name": "compare_schools"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urnsYesList of URNs to compare (2-6 schools)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the info fields shown (type, phase, pupil numbers, etc.) but does not mention potential missing data, response format, or any operational caveats. It adds some value but lacks deeper behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('Compare multiple schools side-by-side by their URNs') followed by the key facts shown. No unnecessary words or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has a simple input (one array param), no output schema, and no annotations. The description adequately explains what it does and what it returns. Some details like geographic scope are missing, but the sibling-tool context and straightforward nature make the description sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the description of the 'urns' parameter in the schema already explains it fully. The description's phrase 'by their URNs' adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Compare') and resource ('multiple schools'), and it distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing side-by-side comparison via URNs. The list of shown facts further clarifies what the tool does.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context — you need URNs to compare schools — and the schema's minItems=2 reinforces that. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like search_schools for finding URNs, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools