enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Exit Value Calculator: 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 behavioral burden and uses it well: it discloses that no purchase/order/payment occurs, no quote is guaranteed, and the flow is free. It also describes the returned information. It falls just short of explicitly stating this tool itself has no side effects, but that is strongly implied.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the 'Read first' usage cue; every sentence adds a distinct piece of information (purpose, non-transaction safety, returned content) with no filler.
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, no-output-schema describe tool, this is complete: it gives the agent the purpose, the decision-relevant safety facts, and the return content. Nothing else is required to call it correctly.
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 schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter vocabulary to document. Per baseline for zero-param tools, the description needs no param semantics and provides none.
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 names the specific function ('states plainly what submit_enquiry does'), names the resource ('Exit Value Calculator enquiry'), and positions it as the read-first alternative to the sibling submit_enquiry. It also specifies what the tool returns (recipient, consent wording, confirmation), so an agent can tell it apart from calculator_describe or calculate.
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 opening 'Read first' explicitly tells the agent to consult this tool before invoking submit_enquiry. It also frames the enquiry as non-purchase and free, which helps decide whether submit_enquiry is appropriate, though it does not name alternative tools or exclusions.
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.