enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Canada Payroll 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 present, the description carries the full disclosure burden and meets it: it explicitly says nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, no quote is guaranteed, and the action is free, and it names exactly what the tool returns (recipients of details, consent wording, confirmation method). This goes well beyond a generic 'describes submit_enquiry' statement.
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 three sentences and front-loads the action with 'Read first.' Each sentence adds distinct information—purpose, safety/no-cost facts, and return contents—so there is little waste, though it is slightly more verbose than a single-sentence definition could be.
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?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description reasonably covers what the tool returns and the key caveats of submit_enquiry. It does not specify output formatting or how the returned text should be used, but for a zero-parameter documentation tool the missing detail is minor.
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 schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 4 applies; there are no parameter meanings for the description to add. The description's focus on behavior and return contents is appropriate for a parameterless informational tool.
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 opens with 'Read first' and states the tool 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does' on the Canada Payroll Calculator, giving a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling submit_enquiry by framing itself as the explaining/meta tool rather than the action itself.
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 explicit guidance to call this tool before engaging with submit_enquiry, and the overall wording positions it as the prerequisite explanation. It does not spell out when to use calculator_describe or enquiry_fields instead, but the clarity of the purpose makes the main usage context 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.
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.