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 of behavioral disclosure. It does convey that the tool provides explanatory information about inputs, outputs, assumptions, and tables, which implies a non-mutating, informational operation. However, it does not explicitly state that no calculation is performed or that the result is descriptive text.
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 content: inputs, outputs, assumptions, and tables. There is no redundant wording or filler.
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 zero-parameter, informational description tool, the description covers the essential content areas sufficiently. It could be more complete by explicitly stating that it is a read-only/descriptive tool and by contrasting it with 'calculate', but given the low complexity, the description is nearly sufficient.
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 input schema is empty, so there are no parameters to document. The description's reference to calculator inputs and outputs is about the described calculator, not about this tool's own parameters. With zero parameters, the baseline of 4 applies and no additional parameter explanation 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 clearly states that the tool describes the calculator's inputs, outputs, assumptions, and tables, and the title reinforces that it explains what the calculator computes. It is distinguishable from the sibling 'calculate' tool, though it does not explicitly name or contrast that sibling.
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?
There is no guidance about when to call this tool instead of the sibling 'calculate' tool or the other enquiry-related tools. An agent would have to infer from the name that this is a descriptive/informational call rather than an actual calculation.
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: calculate runs the valuation, calculator_describe and enquiry_describe explain behavior, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the actual submission. There is no meaningful overlap between the describe tools because one covers the calculator and the other covers the enquiry workflow.
Tool names follow mixed patterns: 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 names are readable but there is no consistent naming convention across the set.
Five tools is a well-sized surface for a calculator-plus-enquiry server. Each tool earns its place and there are no redundant or filler tools.
The server fully covers the calculator workflow (run, understand inputs/outputs) and the enquiry workflow (understand behavior, get fields, submit with explicit consent confirmation). No significant gaps are apparent for the stated purpose.