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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does indicate an informational role by mentioning inputs, outputs, assumptions, and tables, but it never explicitly states that the tool is read-only, performs no computation, or returns a description rather than a calculated result. The agent must rely on the name for this.
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 compact sentence that lists the covered content in a sensible order: inputs, outputs, assumptions, and tables. There is no filler or redundancy.
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 simple parameterless describe tool, the description names the main content areas well, but it does not explain the output format or how this tool relates to 'calculate'. Since there is no output schema, a bit more about the shape of the returned description would make it fully complete.
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 baseline is 4. The description adds useful context by noting that the described calculator's inputs include units, ranges, and defaults, which helps the agent understand what kind of specification the 'describe' call will provide.
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 indicates the tool describes a calculator's inputs, outputs, assumptions, and tables, so the general purpose is recognizable. However, it lacks an explicit action verb and does not directly distinguish itself from the sibling 'calculate' or the likely 'enquiry_describe' family.
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 usage context is only implied: an agent can infer this tool is for inspecting a calculator's specification rather than performing a calculation, but the description never says when to use it versus 'calculate' or another describe/enquiry tool. No alternatives or exclusions are named.
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 role: calculate runs the calculator, calculator_describe documents it, enquiry_describe explains the enquiry flow, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the submission. There is little risk of selecting the wrong tool.
Tool naming mixes patterns: 'submit_enquiry' is verb_noun, 'calculate' is a bare verb, 'calculator_describe' and 'enquiry_describe' are noun_verb, and 'enquiry_fields' is a compound noun. The names are readable and the action/metadata split is recognizable, but there is no consistent convention.
Five tools is a tight, well-scoped set for a calculator-plus-enquiry server. Each tool covers a necessary part of the workflow without redundancy or bloat.
The surface covers the full intended workflow: inspect calculator assumptions, run a calculation, understand the enquiry process, get enquiry fields, and submit with explicit two-step consent. No obvious dead ends or missing operations are apparent.