calculator_describeThe inputs this calculator takes (with units, ranges and defaults), the outputs it returns, and the assumptions and tables behind it.
| 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 burden. It says the tool 'takes' and 'returns' information, implying it is a read-only documentation tool, but it doesn't explicitly state there are no side effects or that it is safe to call. It also doesn't disclose any rate limits or auth requirements. The description gives a decent overview of content but lacks explicit behavioral disclosure.
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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It doesn't waste words, but it could be slightly more specific about the tool's output (e.g., that it returns a textual explanation). It is appropriately sized for a simple documentation tool.
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?
Given there is no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns. It says 'the outputs it returns' but that refers to the calculator's outputs, not the tool's own output. The agent might wonder whether the tool returns a formatted document, a list, or something else. The description is incomplete on this point, and there are no sibling hints about the output format.
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 the schema provides no parameter details. The description mentions the inputs the calculator takes, but that's about the calculator, not the tool's own inputs. Since there are no parameters, the description doesn't need to add parameter semantics; a baseline of 4 is appropriate.
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 that the tool provides information about the calculator's inputs, outputs, assumptions, and tables, which is a clear purpose. It is specific enough to distinguish it from the 'calculate' sibling, which likely performs calculations, but it doesn't explicitly name the sibling alternatives, so it misses a point for differentiation.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the siblings. It doesn't say 'use this before calculating' or mention any alternatives. The agent is left to infer that this is for documentation, but no explicit context is provided.
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 targets a distinct concern: calculation, calculator metadata, enquiry process description, field schema, and submission. The two 'describe' tools are clearly scoped to different resources. No two tools could reasonably be confused.
All names are snake_case and use domain prefixes like 'calculator_' and 'enquiry_', but the verb/noun order is inconsistent: 'submit_enquiry' is verb_noun, 'calculator_describe' and 'enquiry_describe' are noun_verb, and 'calculate' is a bare verb. The set is readable but does not follow a uniform naming convention.
Five tools is an appropriate, well-scoped size for a focused server covering a calculator and an enquiry flow. Each tool has a distinct role and none feels redundant or unnecessary.
The surface fully covers the apparent domain: running the calculator, understanding its inputs/outputs, learning about the enquiry process, fetching the exact field schema, and submitting the two-step enquiry. There are no obvious dead ends or missing required operations.