enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Answering Service Picker: 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 burden of explaining safety and side effects. It explicitly states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, and that the service is free. It also discloses what information the tool returns, giving the agent a clear picture of expected behavior.
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 and front-loaded with the most important instruction ('Read first'). Each sentence adds value: the first defines the tool's role, and the second clarifies consequences and return content. No redundant wording is present.
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 parameterless, informational tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, what submit_enquiry involves, what the user can expect, and what the tool returns. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide to invoke it.
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 100% schema description coverage, so there is no parameter-semantic burden for the description. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's output and purpose rather than parameter details.
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 that the tool explains what submit_enquiry does, naming the resource (Answering Service Picker) and the action (starts an enquiry with human providers). It also differentiates the tool's informational role from the actual submission flow, making its purpose unmistakable.
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' explicitly positions this tool as a prerequisite before using submit_enquiry or related actions. It does not name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context strongly implies it should be read before proceeding, which is sufficient guidance for a documentation-style tool.
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.
The tools split into two clear groups: comparison tools (criteria, options, table) and enquiry tools (describe, fields, submit). The compare_* tools all serve the same comparison domain but each has a distinct output type, so an agent can pick correctly with careful reading.
Most tool names follow a clear snake_case pattern with a domain prefix: compare_criteria, compare_options, compare_table, enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields. The one deviation is submit_enquiry, which is verb-first rather than enquiry-prefixed, but the inconsistency is minor and the names remain predictable.
Six tools is well-scoped for this server: three support exploring the comparison data and three support the enquiry submission workflow. Each tool has a clear role without unnecessary bloat or missing essentials.
The comparison side fully covers criteria, options, and the full data table, while the enquiry side covers explanation, field schema, and the two-step submission flow. There are no obvious dead ends: an agent can introduce the service, compare options, and complete an enquiry from start to finish.