enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on AI Implementation Cost: 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers. It explicitly states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid; no quote is guaranteed; it is free; and it returns details about recipients, consent wording, and confirmation. This gives the agent a clear picture of side effects and output behavior beyond the tool name.
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 compact, front-loaded with 'Read first,' and each sentence earns its place. It covers behavior, constraints, and return content in three sentences without repetition. This is an efficient, well-structured definition.
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 describe tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it references the domain ('AI Implementation Cost'), explains what the tool does, and lists key information it returns. It could slightly improve by explicitly stating 'use this instead of submit_enquiry when you need an explanation before acting,' but this is a minor 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 and the schema covers 100% of that, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful context about what the tool returns, which compensates for the lack of any input schema detail. No parameter-level clarification is needed because there are no parameters.
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 states a specific verb and resource: it 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does on AI Implementation Cost.' This clearly differentiates it from action-oriented siblings like submit_enquiry and calculate. The title reinforces the purpose by framing the tool as informational rather than transactional.
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?
Opening with 'Read first' provides clear sequencing guidance: use this tool before taking action with submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but for a describe tool this is sufficient contextual guidance. The sibling list further implies it complements rather than replaces the other tools.
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 distinct function: running the model, describing the model, explaining the enquiry flow, listing enquiry fields, and submitting an enquiry. While the calculator and enquiry tools share prefixes, their purposes do not overlap.
Tool names are grouped by domain (calculator_*, enquiry_*) but the verb/noun ordering is inconsistent: calculate and submit_enquiry lead with verbs, while calculator_describe, enquiry_describe, and enquiry_fields lead with nouns. The naming is still readable and predictable enough.
Five tools are well-scoped for a site offering a cost calculator and an enquiry submission flow. Each tool earns its place and there is no redundancy.
The tool surface fully covers the stated purpose: describe the calculator, run it, describe the enquiry flow, inspect the fields, and submit with a two-step consent/confirmation process. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for this domain.