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 the burden of explaining behavior. It conveys that the tool is informational and returns details about the calculator, but it does not explicitly state that it performs no calculation, has no side effects, or describe the response format.
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, compact sentence that front-loads the core content. It is efficient, though slightly awkward as a sentence fragment without a main verb.
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 describe-style tool with no output schema, the description adequately lists what the tool will explain: inputs, outputs, assumptions, and tables. It could be more explicit about what the tool itself returns, but the purpose is clear enough for invocation.
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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately focuses on the calculator's inputs rather than the tool's own parameters, so no parameter documentation is missing.
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 indicates the tool provides information about a calculator: its inputs, outputs, assumptions, and tables. This distinguishes it from a calculation tool, though it does not explicitly contrast it with siblings like enquiry_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?
The intended use is implied: an agent would call this to understand the calculator before using calculate. However, there is no explicit statement about when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it.
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 role: calculate runs the calculator, calculator_describe documents it, enquiry_describe explains the enquiry flow, enquiry_fields defines the form schema, and submit_enquiry submits it. There is no functional overlap between any two tools.
Names are readable and follow snake_case, but the pattern is inconsistent: 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 mixed conventions are still understandable and semantically grouped.
With only 5 tools, the server is tightly scoped to two features: a calculator and an enquiry submission flow. Each tool serves a distinct and necessary purpose, and none feel redundant or missing at this scale.
The calculator tool is paired with a description tool, and the enquiry flow is fully covered: process explanation, field definitions, and two-step submission with consent and confirmation tokens. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated domain.