enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Boat Value Calculator: 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, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers useful behavioral context: nothing is bought, no quote is guaranteed, it is free, and it lists what the tool returns. It does not explicitly state that the tool itself is read-only, but 'Read first' and 'States plainly' strongly imply that.
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 short, front-loaded with 'Read first,' and every sentence adds meaningful guidance about what the tool does and returns. There is no filler or repetition.
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 descriptive tool with no output schema, the description is thorough: it explains the subject, the implications, and the returned content. It could be slightly more explicit about being a read-only informational tool, but overall it is complete enough.
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 the schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to explain parameters. Baseline of 4 is appropriate for this case.
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 names a specific verb ('states plainly') and a specific resource ('what submit_enquiry does'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly focusing on submit_enquiry rather than calculate or calculator_describe.
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' is a clear usage signal: the agent should consume this before interacting with submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is clear enough for correct routing.
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.