enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Data Room Picker: 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 behavioral disclosure burden. It explains that the tool returns explanatory content about the enquiry process, including recipient information, consent wording, and confirmation steps. It also clarifies that the action described is free and non-binding, but it does not explicitly state whether this tool itself has no side effects.
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 reasonably concise and front-loaded with the 'Read first' instruction. Each sentence adds value, though some content in the title (not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote) is repeated in the description.
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 adequately explains what the tool returns and clarifies the scope of the underlying enquiry action. It could be more complete by explicitly saying when to reach for this tool rather than compare or enquiry_fields, but the essential context is present.
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 the schema already covers this with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to explain parameter meanings. The baseline of 4 applies because the schema fully documents the empty parameter set.
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 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does' and that it returns who receives details, consent wording, and confirmation method. This distinguishes it from actual submission tools like submit_enquiry, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from compare_* or enquiry_fields siblings.
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' provides an explicit usage cue that this should be used before engaging with the enquiry flow. It clarifies what the enquiry does not involve (purchase, payment, guaranteed quote), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use this tool relative to the sibling tools.
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.
The compare_* tools are clearly separated by purpose: criteria definitions, option lists, and the full table. The enquiry_* tools are also distinct, though compare_options and compare_table could be slightly confused since both return option-related information.
The set uses a mostly consistent pattern: compare_* for comparison data and enquiry_* for enquiry-related operations, with submit_enquiry following verb_noun style. The two prefixes are logical but not perfectly uniform across the whole set.
Six tools is well-scoped: three cover the comparison side and three cover the enquiry workflow. Every tool serves a clear, non-redundant role in the site's apparent purpose.
The comparison tools cover criteria, options, and the full table, giving agents everything needed to present or filter the comparison. The enquiry tools cover explanation, field schema, and two-step submission, so the main user journey has no obvious dead ends.