enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Florida HVAC Replacement Cost: 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does state that the tool returns explanatory information including who receives details, consent wording, and confirmation behavior, which implies a read-only informational tool. It does not explicitly declare the absence of side effects, but the 0-parameter informational nature makes this a minor gap.
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 three sentences and each contributes meaningful information: the reference to submit_enquiry, the non-transactional caveats, and the return content. The title is somewhat ambiguous but the body is front-loaded and efficient.
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 adequately covers what the tool is for, what it clarifies, and what it returns. No output schema exists, so the explicit mention of return content helps fill that gap, though the exact format is still unspecified.
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 schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add beyond what the empty schema already shows. Per the calibration baseline, 0 parameters earns a 4 even without parameter-specific explanation.
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 explains what submit_enquiry does, using the verb 'States plainly' and listing the content it returns. It distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by being the informational precursor rather than the action itself, though it does not explicitly contrast with enquiry_fields.
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' implies the tool should be used before submit_enquiry, giving contextual timing guidance. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over enquiry_fields or submit_enquiry, and it offers no exclusion criteria or alternative routing.
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 clearly distinct role: one explains the process, one provides the field schema, and one performs the actual submission. No two tools overlap in purpose.
The naming pattern is inconsistent: two tools use the enquiry_ prefix while the third uses submit_enquiry, and the first tool puts the verb after the noun. The names remain readable, but the convention is not unified.
Three tools is well-scoped for this server's narrow purpose: describe the process, list the required fields, and submit the enquiry. Each tool has a clear reason to exist.
The tool surface covers the full enquiry lifecycle for this domain: understanding what will happen, retrieving the exact schema and options, and submitting with a two-step confirmation flow. No obvious dead ends or missing operations.