enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Charter vs Own: 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 burden and discloses both the nature of the tool (it states/returns information, not a purchase) and the specific return content: who receives details, consent wording, and confirmation method. It stops short of explicitly saying this tool itself makes no changes, but the 'Read first' and 'States plainly' phrasing make that clear enough.
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 four purposeful sentences with no filler: a directive, the core function, the key disclaimers, and the return contents. It is front-loaded with 'Read first' and every sentence earns its place.
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, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what the tool explains, the key caveats (free, no guarantee, no purchase), and what it returns. Nothing critical is missing for correct 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 there is nothing for the description to explain. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter documentation gap exists.
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 uses a specific verb ('States plainly') with a specific subject ('what submit_enquiry does'), and the title reinforces the scope. It clearly positions the tool as a descriptive precursor to submit_enquiry, distinguishing it from the actual action tool and sibling enquiry_fields.
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 an explicit directive to invoke this before the action tool, and the description frames it as the explanation of submit_enquiry's behavior on Charter vs Own. It does not explicitly name when not to use alternatives like enquiry_fields, but the context is clear enough for an agent to recognize this as the informational first step.
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.