enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Compare Answering: 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 behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently explains that the actual enquiry initiation is not a purchase, order, or payment, and that no quote is guaranteed. It also discloses what the tool returns, though it could more explicitly state that this tool itself performs no submission and has no side effects.
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 with 'Read first.' Each sentence earns its place: one orients usage, one states the core function, and one lists the return contents. There is no filler or repetition.
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, no-output-schema informational tool, the description is largely complete: it explains the tool's purpose, the behavior it describes, and the specific return elements. A small gap is that it does not explicitly state that this tool itself is read-only and does not trigger any submission.
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 the baseline is 4. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's explanatory content rather than parameter syntax, and no parameter-related gaps exist.
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 clear verb-resource pair: the tool 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does' and returns specific information. It is clearly differentiated from the sibling submit_enquiry tool by explicitly framing itself as the read-first explanation rather than the action.
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 imperative 'Read first' gives explicit guidance to use this tool before acting, which orients an agent to the correct workflow. It clearly identifies the related tool (submit_enquiry) and frames this as the preliminary explanation, though it does not explicitly list when-not-to-use conditions.
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 clearly distinct purpose: compare_criteria, compare_options, and compare_table target different aspects of the comparison data, while enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields, and submit_enquiry each handle a separate step of the enquiry workflow. No two tools overlap in a way that would cause misselection.
The naming mostly follows a consistent domain-prefix pattern: compare_* for the comparison data and enquiry_* for the enquiry flow. The outlier is submit_enquiry, which inverts the pattern to verb_noun instead of noun_prefix_noun, creating a minor deviation.
Six tools is well-scoped for this server's purpose: three tools cover the comparison aspect and three cover the enquiry process. Each tool earns its place, and the count feels neither sparse nor bloated.
The tool set provides complete coverage for the domain: comparison data (criteria, options, full table) and the full enquiry lifecycle (description, form fields, two-step submission). There are no obvious missing operations that would cause agent failures.