calculator_describeThe inputs this calculator takes (with units, ranges and defaults), the outputs it returns, and the assumptions and tables behind it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It does convey that this is an informational, read-only tool by describing what it covers: inputs, outputs, assumptions, and tables. It does not explicitly say 'it does not perform calculations' or describe the response format, but for a zero-parameter describe tool the behavior is reasonably transparent.
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 front-loads the key content categories: inputs, outputs, assumptions, and tables. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail. Every phrase adds value.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema describe tool, this description covers the essential information: the resource and the categories of information the agent will get. It does not explain how the returned documentation should be used with the 'calculate' sibling, but that is more of a usage-guideline gap than a completeness gap.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description's mention of inputs with units/ranges/defaults refers to the target calculator's inputs, not to this tool's own invocation parameters, which is appropriate for a describe tool.
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 what the tool communicates: the calculator's inputs (with units, ranges, defaults), outputs, and underlying assumptions/tables. It is distinct from the sibling 'calculate' tool, which presumably performs the calculation. It lacks an explicit verb like 'describes' or 'returns a reference for', so it is clear but not maximally directive.
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 does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'calculate' or 'enquiry_describe'. The intent is implied: this is a reference/discovery tool to understand the calculator before invoking it. However, no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative pointers are provided.
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.
Each tool targets a clearly separate concern: calculate runs the calculator, calculator_describe documents it, and the three enquiry tools split process overview, field schema, and submission. There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between them.
The names are readable but mix conventions: 'submit_enquiry' is verb-noun, 'calculate' is a bare verb, 'calculator_describe' and 'enquiry_describe' invert the verb-noun pattern, and 'enquiry_fields' is noun-noun. The shared 'describe' suffix gives some structure, so it is not chaotic.
Five tools is well-scoped for a server with two related functions: a 409A calculator and an enquiry submission flow. Each tool has a distinct job and none feel redundant or missing.
The calculator has both a run tool and a describe tool for inputs/outputs; the enquiry flow has a behavioral overview, a field listing, and a two-step submission process. For the stated purpose, the surface is complete with no obvious dead ends.