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 full burden, and it clearly indicates the tool provides informational content about inputs, outputs, assumptions, and tables. This implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, though it does not explicitly state that no calculation is performed.
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?
One sentence efficiently enumerates exactly what the tool describes, with no filler. The most important detail (inputs) is front-loaded.
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, the description covers the essential return content. Without an output schema it could be slightly more explicit about the delivery format, but nothing an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly is missing.
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 there are no parameter schemas to document; the 0-param baseline of 4 applies. The description's mention of units, ranges, and defaults refers to the calculator's conceptual inputs, not tool parameters, and is a helpful extra.
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 title and description make clear this tool explains the employer payroll cost calculator's inputs, outputs, assumptions, and backing tables. It is distinct from the sibling calculate tool because it describes the calculator rather than executing it, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns'.
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?
Usage is implied by the describe-style name: an agent would call this when it needs to understand the calculator before using calculate. However, the description never explicitly says when to prefer this over siblings or states any preconditions.
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 clear single responsibility: calculate runs the calculator, calculator_describe explains it, enquiry_describe explains the submission flow, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry does the actual submission. There is no meaningful overlap between the calculator cluster and the enquiry cluster.
Names are readable and all snake_case, but the pattern is mixed: calculate and submit_enquiry are verb-first while calculator_describe, enquiry_describe, and enquiry_fields are noun-first/noun-noun. The two describe tools are consistent with each other, but the set as a whole lacks a single predictable verb_noun convention.
Five tools is well-scoped for a server that provides a payroll calculator and an enquiry submission flow. Each tool covers a distinct function, and there is no bloat or token-heavy sprawl.
The calculator surface has both run and self-description, and the enquiry surface has process description, field schema, and a two-step submit flow with explicit consent handling. No critical lifecycle gap is obvious for this narrow domain.