enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Conveyancing Fees Australia: 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 full burden. It discloses the non-transactional nature ('Nothing is bought, ordered or paid'), the free nature, the lack of guarantee ('no quote is guaranteed'), and what the tool returns (who receives details, consent wording, confirmation method). This is thorough and accurate.
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, front-loaded with a clear directive ('Read first'), and every clause contributes meaningful information. 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 informational tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what the tool does, what it does not do, what the user should expect, and what content is returned. No critical gaps remain.
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 is nothing for the description to add beyond the schema. The baseline of 4 applies because parameter semantics are not a concern.
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 states a specific verb ('States plainly') and resource ('what submit_enquiry does on Conveyancing Fees Australia'), and makes clear this tool is explanatory, not transactional. It differentiates itself from submit_enquiry by emphasizing that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid.
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' gives explicit timing guidance: this should be used before taking action, likely before submit_enquiry. It does not mention enquiry_fields or give explicit 'when not to use' alternatives, but the context is clear enough.
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 distinct responsibility: one explains the process, one provides the field schema, and one performs the submission. There is no meaningful overlap or boundary ambiguity.
The names are readable and share the 'enquiry' root, but the pattern is inconsistent: enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields use a noun-first structure while submit_enquiry uses verb-first. This creates minor style inconsistency without losing meaning.
Three tools is well-scoped for a single enquiry submission workflow. It avoids bloat while providing the necessary orientation, schema, and submission functions.
The set fully covers the enquiry lifecycle: describing the process, obtaining valid fields, and submitting with consent and confirmation. No obvious gap exists for the stated purpose.