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 behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently states that the tool returns descriptive information about inputs, outputs, assumptions, and tables. Its read-only nature is strongly implied by the title 'calculator_describe' and the content, making side effects unlikely. It does not explicitly say 'does not calculate,' but this is not misleading.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key content: inputs, outputs, assumptions, and tables. There is no fluff or repetition of the tool name; every phrase adds information.
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 introspection tool with no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs to know: what inputs are described, what outputs are returned, and what underlying material is included. It could mention output format or explicitly orient the agent to use this before 'calculate', but the core behavior is sufficiently 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 and 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameters. Per the rubric, zero parameters warrant a baseline of 4; the description cannot add parameter-level detail, and none is needed.
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 is specific: it states the tool provides the calculator's input parameters, outputs, assumptions, and supporting tables. This clearly identifies it as a documentation/describe tool and distinguishes it from the sibling 'calculate' tool, which presumably performs the calculation.
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 description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'calculate' or 'enquiry_describe'. It is only implied that this tool should be used when one wants to understand the calculator's structure and assumptions before calculating.
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 explains it, enquiry_describe explains the enquiry flow, enquiry_fields lists the field schema, and submit_enquiry performs the actual submission. There is no meaningful overlap or risk of selecting the wrong tool for a task.
Tool names follow readable lowercase snake_case but mix conventions: calculate is a bare verb, submit_enquiry is verb_noun, calculator_describe and enquiry_describe are noun_verb, and enquiry_fields is noun_noun. The pattern is inconsistent but still understandable and not chaotic.
Five tools is a well-scoped size for this domain. Each tool covers a necessary aspect of the calculator and enquiry flow without redundancy or bloat.
The tool set fully covers the calculator workflow: run the calculation, understand its inputs and assumptions, learn the enquiry process, get the fields, and submit with the required two-step confirmation. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the apparent purpose.