enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Eligible By Descent: 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 transparently states that the tool initiates an enquiry, involves no purchase or payment, offers no guaranteed quote, is free, and explains what the response contains. This is strong disclosure for a zero-parameter descriptive tool.
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 and front-loaded with 'Read first.' Every sentence adds value: it identifies the related tool, clarifies what is not happening, states it is free, and summarizes the return content. Nothing is wasted.
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 tool with no input schema and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the tool's role, the user's expectations, and the key elements of the response. The agent has enough information to decide when to call it and what it will receive.
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?
There are no parameters, so the description is not required to explain parameter behavior. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and output instead.
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 the tool's function: it describes what submit_enquiry does rather than performing the enquiry itself. It explicitly says it returns who receives details, consent wording, and confirmation method, which fully clarifies the tool's scope and differentiates it from submit_enquiry.
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 phrase 'Read first' directly instructs the agent to use this tool before submit_enquiry, giving clear contextual guidance. It also sets expectations by stating that nothing is bought, paid, or guaranteed, which helps prevent misuse. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the intended sequence is clear.
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 maps to a clear, distinct step: checker_start begins the guide, checker_answer advances it, checker_tree provides the full map, and the enquiry tools cover description, schema, and submission. There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between the tools.
The checker_* and enquiry_* prefixes clearly group the two workflows, and most names read predictably. Slight inconsistency exists because submit_enquiry reverses the prefix/verb pattern and checker_tree is a noun rather than an action, but the overall pattern remains understandable.
Six tools is well-scoped for the server's two distinct purposes: a three-tool decision guide and a three-tool enquiry workflow. Each tool earns its place and the count is neither bloated nor thin.
The decision guide covers start, progression, and full tree access, so agents can navigate the entire flow. The enquiry workflow covers explanation, field schema, and the full two-step submission process, leaving no obvious dead ends or missing steps.