enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Answering Service Compare: 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. It discloses that the tool returns explanatory content—including who receives details, consent wording, and confirmation process—and clarifies the described action is not a purchase or guaranteed quote. This is transparent for a zero-parameter description tool.
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?
Three sentences deliver the core message efficiently, front-loaded with 'Read first'. The structure is clear, though there is slight redundancy between 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does' and the subsequent explanatory content.
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 no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete. It explains the tool's purpose, what it returns, and its relationship to submit_enquiry. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly without ambiguity.
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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds context about what the tool returns, which is meaningful for an agent deciding whether to call it.
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 explicitly states the tool's function: 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Answering Service Compare' and enumerates key facts (no purchase, no guaranteed quote, free). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like submit_enquiry and compare_* tools, which perform actions or comparisons rather than explaining them.
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 opening directive 'Read first' provides explicit guidance to use this tool before engaging with submit_enquiry. It implies the appropriate timing and context, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use other sibling 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 purpose: compare_criteria, compare_options, and compare_table cover different aspects of the comparison data, while enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields, and submit_enquiry handle the enquiry process. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: compare_* for comparison-related tools and enquiry_* for enquiry-related tools. The naming is predictable and uniform throughout.
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of providing comparison data and enabling enquiries. Each tool earns its place, and the count feels appropriate without being sparse or overloaded.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle: users can retrieve the comparison criteria, options, and full table, then understand the enquiry process, get required fields, and submit an enquiry with consent. No obvious gaps exist for the server's stated domain.