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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It accurately conveys that the tool returns explanatory information about inputs, outputs, and assumptions, implying a read-only informational behavior. However, it does not explicitly state that no calculation is performed or that there are no side effects.
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 core purpose and enumerates the three key categories of information provided. Every word earns its place, and there is no wasted or redundant 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 simple descriptive tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the agent will receive: inputs, outputs, and assumptions. It could be more explicit about return format, but given the low complexity, the explanation 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, so the schema provides no meaningful parameter documentation. Per calibration, zero parameters warrant a baseline of 4; the description adds useful context by noting that the calculator's inputs include units, ranges, and defaults, which is relevant even though this tool itself takes 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 clearly states that the tool explains the calculator's inputs, outputs, and underlying assumptions, which is a specific resource and purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like calculate by focusing on description rather than computation, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 implies the tool should be used to understand the calculator before using it, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus the calculate sibling or any other alternative. There is no exclusion guidance or when-not-to-use information.
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 maps cleanly to a distinct concern: running the valuation, describing calculator inputs/outputs, describing the enquiry process, listing enquiry fields, and submitting the enquiry. No two tools appear to do the same thing, and the describe tools are clearly separated by subject.
The metadata tools follow a similar 'resource_describe'/'resource_fields' pattern, but the action tools are inconsistent: 'calculate' is a bare verb while 'submit_enquiry' is verb_noun, and the describe tools are noun_verb rather than verb_noun. The names are still readable, but the conventions are mixed.
Five tools is appropriate for this narrow domain: two calculator-related, three enquiry-related, with no redundant or filler tools. It sits comfortably in a well-scoped range.
The surface covers the full workflow an agent needs: understanding the calculator, running it, understanding the enquiry, obtaining its fields, and submitting it with the required consent and confirmation. No obvious dead ends or missing lifecycle operations.