enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Cyprus Company Cost: 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it succeeds: it states the enquiry is free, non-binding, not a purchase/order/payment, and that no quote is guaranteed. It also discloses what the tool returns: who receives the details, the consent wording, and how confirmation happens.
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 front-loaded with 'Read first' and communicates the essential caveats efficiently. The second sentence is dense and packs several distinct facts, but every piece of information serves a purpose, so it is not bloated.
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 that there are no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what the tool is for, what behavior it describes, the key caveats, and the return contents. There is no missing critical context for invoking this zero-argument tool.
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 and there are no parameter meanings for the description to clarify. The description appropriately focuses on purpose and return content instead of inventing parameter guidance that would be irrelevant.
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 states that this tool is a read-first explanation of what submit_enquiry does, using the specific verb 'states' and naming the target resource ('submit_enquiry on Cyprus Company Cost'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling submit_enquiry by being the descriptive version rather than the action itself, and the title reinforces the boundary by clarifying that no purchase or guaranteed quote is involved.
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 instruction 'Read first' is an explicit usage signal: consult this tool before acting on submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly discuss when to prefer enquiry_fields, so it does not fully cover all sibling alternatives, but the primary routing guidance is clear and actionable.
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 role: one explains the process, one provides the field schema, and one submits the enquiry. There is no meaningful overlap or risk of selecting the wrong tool for a given step.
All names use snake_case and are readable, but the pattern is mixed: two tools use an enquiry_ prefix while submit_enquiry uses a verb-noun form. The inconsistency is minor but noticeable.
Three tools is exactly right for this narrow, single-purpose workflow: describe, fields, and submit. Each tool earns its place and there is no unnecessary surface area.
The set fully covers the enquiry submission lifecycle for this domain: understanding the process, retrieving the required fields, and submitting with explicit consent confirmation. No obvious dead ends or missing operations exist.