enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Dental Software Compare: 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. It openly states what the tool returns (who receives details, consent wording, confirmation process) and clarifies what it does NOT do (no purchase, no guaranteed quote, free). This is fully transparent and leaves no ambiguity.
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 concise and front-loaded. It opens with 'Read first' to immediately signal purpose, then uses two compact sentences to convey all necessary information without waste.
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 simple describe tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is fully complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, what it returns, and its relationship to submit_enquiry, leaving no gaps.
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, so there is nothing to document. Per the baseline for tools with no parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description correctly does not attempt to describe parameters that don't exist.
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 its purpose: to describe what submit_enquiry does. It uses a specific verb ('States plainly') and identifies the resource ('what submit_enquiry does on Dental Software Compare'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on the explanation of the enquiry process, not performing it.
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?
It explicitly instructs 'Read first,' indicating this should be consulted before using submit_enquiry. While it doesn't mention alternatives like compare_criteria or enquiry_fields, the 'Read first' directive provides clear contextual guidance for when to use this 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.
The tools are clearly separated into two groups: comparison (criteria, options, table) and enquiry (describe, fields, submit). Within each group, each tool has a distinct purpose with no overlap, making it easy for an agent to select the right one.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (compare_criteria, compare_options, compare_table, submit_enquiry), but enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields reverse the order. While readable and predictable, this minor inconsistency prevents a perfect score.
Six tools is well-scoped for the server's purpose of comparing dental software and submitting enquiries. Each tool covers a necessary function without redundancy or bloat.
The tool surface fully covers the core workflow: retrieving comparison data (criteria, options, full table) and handling the enquiry process (description, fields, submission). No obvious gaps exist for the stated domain.