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 burden. It states the tool provides inputs, outputs, assumptions, and tables, which implies a non-mutating descriptive behavior. However, it does not explicitly declare that it performs no calculations or side effects, leaving some ambiguity about whether it executes the calculator or just documents it.
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 front-loaded with the primary purpose, listing the exact content (inputs, outputs, assumptions, tables) without waste. It is concise and well-structured.
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 the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description fully specifies what an agent can expect: a breakdown of inputs, outputs, and background assumptions/tables. This is complete for the tool's simple scope.
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 zero parameters in the schema, so per guidelines the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details since none exist, and it appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than any inputs.
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 what the tool does: it describes the calculator's inputs, outputs, and underlying assumptions/tables. The verb 'describes' is implied, and the resource is the specific calculator. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling 'enquiry_describe' or mention that it is a read-only metadata tool, so it's clear but not fully distinguishing.
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 description implies usage when one needs details about the calculator's inputs and outputs, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over 'calculate' or other siblings. There is no exclusion or alternative mention, so guidance is inferred rather than explicit.
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 has a distinct purpose: calculate runs the tax calculator, calculator_describe explains its inputs/outputs, enquiry_describe explains the enquiry process, enquiry_fields lists form fields, and submit_enquiry performs the submission. There is no overlap between any of them, making selection unambiguous.
Naming mixes patterns: 'calculate' is a bare verb, 'calculator_describe' and 'enquiry_describe' use noun_verb, 'enquiry_fields' uses noun_noun, and 'submit_enquiry' uses verb_noun. While the pattern is not uniform, each name still conveys its function reasonably well, and the mixing is not chaotic.
Five tools is a well-scoped set for a server that handles both a calculator and an enquiry form. Each tool addresses a necessary step (describe, calculate, fields, submit), with no redundancy or excessive bloat.
The server covers the full workflow: for the calculator, it provides execution and documentation; for the enquiry, it provides process description, field listing, and submission with a two-step confirmation. There are no obvious missing operations for the stated domain.