enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Cyprus Gross to Net: 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 must carry the transparency burden. It does clarify that the action being described belongs to submit_enquiry and that this tool 'returns' details, consent wording, and confirmation method, implying a read-only informational function. However, it never explicitly states that calling enquiry_describe itself has no side effects, and the title could be misread as producing an enquiry.
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: three sentences, led by 'Read first', and packs the key disclaimers and return-value summary efficiently. A little redundancy with the title ('not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote') keeps it from a 5.
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 help/describe tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential context: what submit_enquiry does, what is not included, and what the returned explanation will contain. It does not detail how the returned text should be used or relate to enquiry_fields, but nothing critical is missing for invoking it correctly.
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 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there is no parameter documentation burden on the description. It adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed.
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 clear function: it 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does' on Cyprus Gross to Net, so an agent can see it is an explanatory companion to the submission tool. It also lists what the returned explanation covers. It does not explicitly name or differentiate from sibling tools such as enquiry_fields or calculator_describe, so it stops short of a 5.
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 use cue: call this before using submit_enquiry. The description also makes clear this tool is the informational precursor to submit_enquiry. It gives no when-not-to-use or alternatives, so it lacks the full exclusionary guidance needed for a 5.
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.