enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Cyprus Non-Dom Calculator: 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 behavioral burden and handles it well: it discloses that this is free, involves no purchase or payment, guarantees no quote, and explains what the returned content includes. This gives the agent accurate expectations beyond the tool name alone.
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 four efficient sentences, front-loaded with 'Read first' and then plainly stating outcomes and exclusions. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant restatement of the title or tool name.
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 explanatory tool with no output schema, the description is fully adequate: it says what the tool explains, what the user will not get, and what the returned content covers. It also orients the agent among siblings by contrasting with submit_enquiry.
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 and 100% schema coverage by triviality, so there are no parameter semantics to document. As the rubric sets a baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools, nothing additional is needed in the description.
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 names the specific verb ('states', 'returns') and resource ('what submit_enquiry does on Cyprus Non-Dom Calculator'), making clear this is an explanatory tool rather than the action tool itself. It is immediately distinguishable from submit_enquiry, which performs 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 'Read first' explicitly signals when to use this tool: before acting on submit_enquiry. It gives clear context about the enquiry flow and what to expect, though it does not explicitly enumerate alternatives or state when not to use the tool.
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 performs the calculation, the two describe tools explain the calculator and enquiry respectively, enquiry_fields lists form fields, and submit_enquiry handles the multi-step submission. There is no meaningful overlap between them.
Tool names are readable and mostly self-explanatory, but they mix patterns: calculate and submit_enquiry follow verb-first naming, while calculator_describe, enquiry_describe, and enquiry_fields are noun-first. The inconsistency is noticeable but not confusing.
Five tools is well-scoped for this server's purpose: one calculation tool, two documentation/description tools, one fields-listing tool, and one submission tool. Each tool earns its place without redundancy or bloat.
The surface covers the full user journey: understanding the calculator, seeing the enquiry fields, validating consent, and submitting the enquiry with a confirmation token. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations within the stated domain.