enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Accountancy Practice Valuation: it starts an enquiry with human providers who quote directly. Nothing is bought, ordered or paid; no quote is guaranteed; it is free. Also returns who receives the details, the consent wording, and how the person confirms.
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it explicitly states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, and that the enquiry is free. It also discloses what the response contains: who receives the details, the consent wording, and how confirmation happens. This goes well beyond the minimum.
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 three short sentences plus a clarifying title. The 'Read first' instruction is front-loaded, and every sentence contributes either scope, constraints, or output content. There is no filler or redundant detail.
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 explanatory tool with no output schema, the description is fully adequate: it names the underlying action, key constraints, and return content. An agent can decide to call it and know exactly what to expect without additional detail.
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 input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameters to document and schema coverage is trivially 100%. No parameter explanation is needed here, and the baseline of 4 applies.
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 names the tool's function with a specific verb: it states plainly what submit_enquiry does, and names the resource (Accountancy Practice Valuation). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling submit_enquiry tool by being the explanatory pre-read rather than the action itself. No tautology or ambiguity.
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?
'Read first' is an explicit usage instruction, signaling that this tool should be consulted before using submit_enquiry. It frames the tool as the plain-language reference for what the submission tool does. It does not explicitly contrast with enquiry_fields, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when to use it.
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 has a clearly separate job: enquiry_describe explains the process, enquiry_fields provides the input schema, and submit_enquiry performs the two-step submission. There is no operational overlap or realistic chance of selecting the wrong tool.
The names all revolve around 'enquiry' and use snake_case, but the pattern is mixed: enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields put 'enquiry' first, while submit_enquiry puts the verb first. The conventions are readable but not uniform.
Three tools is exactly right for a single enquiry workflow: contextual description, field schema, and submission. Nothing feels redundant or missing at the tool level.
The set fully covers the enquiry lifecycle from explanation and schema discovery through validated, consent-confirmed submission. The two-step submit flow and email-link confirmation are built into the submit tool, so there are no dead ends.