enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Florida Roof 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 behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose important context: the enquiry is free, nothing is bought/ordered/paid, no quote is guaranteed, and returns include who receives details, consent wording, and confirmation method. However, it does not explicitly state that calling enquiry_describe itself performs no submission and is purely informational, which leaves a small but real ambiguity.
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 front-loaded with 'Read first' and then uses short, purposeful sentences to convey the tool's purpose, the non-transactional nature of the enquiry, and the output contents. It repeats a little of the title, but every sentence earns its place and the structure is easy to scan.
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 with no output schema, the description gives adequate context: what the tool explains, key behavioral caveats, and what the returned information covers. It does not explicitly link to sibling tools or next steps, but that is not necessary for correct invocation.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document. Per the zero-parameter baseline, this is handled well; no parameter semantics are 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 the tool's job: it explains, in plain language, what submit_enquiry does on Florida Roof Replacement Cost. The title reinforces the outcome ('an ENQUIRY with a human, not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote'). It is distinguishable from siblings by its descriptive verb, 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' is an explicit directive to consult this tool before acting, and the description grounds the agent in what submit_enquiry will and won't do. It does not mention when to use enquiry_fields instead, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing, but the intended usage context is clear.
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 covers a distinct aspect of the same enquiry flow: describing the behaviour, providing the field schema, and submitting with confirmation. There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between them.
The 'enquiry_' prefix gives some cohesion, but the convention is mixed: 'enquiry_describe' is noun-verb, 'enquiry_fields' is noun-noun, and 'submit_enquiry' is verb-noun. The names are readable but not consistently structured.
Three tools is exactly right for this narrow, single-purpose server. Each tool earns its place and there is no unnecessary surface area.
For the stated purpose of submitting an enquiry, the set covers the full flow: understanding what happens, retrieving the required fields, and submitting with consent/confirmation. No obvious lifecycle gaps exist for this scope.