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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently explains what the tool returns: input specifications, outputs, assumptions, and tables. As a describe-only tool with no parameters, this sufficiently conveys its non-mutating, informational nature.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key content areas: inputs, outputs, and assumptions/tables. Every phrase earns its place, with no repetition of the title or wasted wording.
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 tool with no output schema, the description gives a reasonable overview of what will be found. It might be slightly stronger with an explicit statement that this is read-only documentation, but the tool's nature makes that unnecessary.
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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaningful context by mentioning units, ranges, defaults, and return categories, which helps an agent understand the value of calling this tool even without parameters.
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 the tool documents the calculator's inputs, outputs, and underlying assumptions and tables, which is a clear purpose. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling 'calculate', though the name and 'describe' nature imply the distinction.
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 description implies this tool should be used to understand the calculator's behavior and details before using it, but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. Usage context is present but left to inference.
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: calculate executes the calculator, calculator_describe explains it, enquiry_describe explains the enquiry flow, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the submission. No two tools appear to do the same thing.
The names are readable and all use snake_case, but they mix verb-first naming like calculate and submit_enquiry with noun-first naming like calculator_describe and enquiry_fields. This inconsistency is noticeable but not chaotic.
Five tools is well-scoped for this server: two tools cover the calculator itself and its documentation, and three tools cover the enquiry lifecycle. Each tool earns its place without unnecessary overlap or bloat.
The tool set fully covers the advertised domain: calculation, calculator metadata, enquiry process explanation, enquiry field schema, and the two-step submission flow. There are no obvious gaps that would prevent an agent from completing the intended workflow.