enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Business Value Now: 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 covers the key behavioral caveats: nothing is bought, ordered, paid, or guaranteed, and the tool returns specific information (recipients, consent wording, confirmation method). It stops short of explicitly stating that enquiry_describe itself is read-only and has no side effects, but the informational framing strongly implies this.
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: 'Read first' comes first, followed by the core purpose, the key disclaimers, and the return-value summary. No sentence is redundant; each adds a distinct piece of useful 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 zero-parameter informational tool with no output schema, this is complete: it says what the tool does, what it returns, and the important domain caveats about purchase and quote guarantees. The sibling context reinforces that this tool is the explainer for submit_enquiry, and the description fully supports that role.
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?
There are zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter ambiguity for the description to resolve. The baseline of 4 applies because the description does not need to add anything beyond the empty schema.
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 explicitly names the resource (submit_enquiry on Business Value Now) and the verb ('states plainly' / 'describes'), and the title frames it as an informational overview. It is clearly distinguished from the sibling submit_enquiry: one explains the enquiry flow, the other performs it.
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 opening 'Read first' signals this tool is the preliminary step before submit_enquiry, and the rest explains what an agent will learn. It gives clear context for when to call it but does not explicitly enumerate alternatives or state 'use this instead of X,' though the sibling context makes the intent obvious.
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 six tools cleanly split into two domains: the checker_* tools handle the decision guide lifecycle (start, progress, full tree) and the enquiry_* tools handle the enquiry form (description, fields, submission). Each tool has a specific, non-overlapping role, and the submit_enquiry tool's two-step confirmation is clearly documented.
The tool names follow a clear prefix convention: checker_* for the decision guide and enquiry_* for the enquiry workflow. There is slight inconsistency in whether the prefix is followed by a noun or verb (e.g., checker_start vs checker_tree), but the overall pattern is predictable and readable.
With six tools, the server is well-scoped. Each tool serves a distinct purpose in one of the two workflows, and there are no redundant or filler tools.
The checker workflow is complete with start, step-by-step progression, and a full tree for end-to-end reasoning. The enquiry workflow is also complete, covering descriptive context, field schema, and a two-step submission process with explicit consent handling.