enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Exit Tax Estimator: 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 burden. It discloses what the tool returns: an explanation of submit_enquiry, recipient details, consent wording, and confirmation method. However, it does not explicitly state that this tool itself has no side effects or how the output is structured.
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 brief and front-loaded with 'Read first,' making the intended use immediately clear. It is slightly repetitive in saying 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does' and then restating that content, but overall it is concise and well organized.
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, the description covers what the tool explains, the key caveats about the enquiry not being a purchase or guaranteed quote, and the specific content it returns. Without an output schema, a bit more detail on the exact output format would be helpful, but this is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.
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 input schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because the description adds useful context about the tool's informational purpose even though no parameter documentation is needed.
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 explains what submit_enquiry does: it starts an enquiry with human providers who quote directly, with no purchase or guarantee. It is distinct from the sibling submit_enquiry tool, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the other sibling tools.
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 instruction 'Read first' clearly signals when to use this tool: before using submit_enquiry. It provides context for a pre-submission explanatory step, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.
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 tool set cleanly separates into two prefixes: checker_* for the decision guide and enquiry_* for the estimator form. Within each group, each tool has a distinct role: start, answer, tree for the checker; describe, fields, submit for the enquiry.
All tool names use snake_case with a consistent domain-prefix pattern: checker_start, checker_answer, checker_tree and enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields, submit_enquiry. The naming makes the grouping and purpose immediately predictable.
Six tools is a well-scoped count for a server covering two distinct workflows: a decision guide and an enquiry submission flow. Every tool earns its place and there is no unnecessary redundancy.
The checker workflow is complete: start gives an entry point, answer navigates the tree, and tree allows full end-to-end reasoning. The enquiry workflow is also complete: describe explains the process, fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry handles the two-step consent and confirmation flow.