enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Florida Solar Cost 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?
There are no annotations, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses that the tool returns information (who receives details, consent wording, confirmation method) and describes the nature of submit_enquiry (free, no purchase, no guaranteed quote). However, it does not explicitly state that this tool itself is read-only or has no side effects, which is a minor gap for a meta-description tool.
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 concise, with a clear directive ('Read first') front-loaded, followed by a straightforward explanation of what submit_enquiry does and what this tool returns. It avoids unnecessary elaboration and uses a logical flow.
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 description tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the agent will receive: who receives the details, the consent wording, and how confirmation occurs. It does not specify the exact output format (e.g., plain text or structured), but for an informational tool this is acceptable. It is complete enough for an agent to know what to expect.
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, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly omits parameter details since none exist, and it focuses on the output content instead. This is appropriate and adds no redundancy.
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 this tool explains what submit_enquiry does on the Florida Solar Cost Calculator. It uses a specific verb ('states plainly') and names the resource (submit_enquiry), distinguishing it from calculator_describe by context. The title also reinforces the non-purchase, non-guaranteed nature, which is helpful.
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 begins with 'Read first,' which implicitly instructs the agent to consult this tool before acting on submit_enquiry. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus other siblings, nor does it state when not to use it. The guidance is minimal and relies on inference.
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: calculate runs the calculator, calculator_describe explains it, enquiry_describe explains the enquiry process, enquiry_fields lists the form fields, and submit_enquiry performs the submission. There is no overlap or boundary ambiguity.
Most tools follow a noun_describe or noun_fields pattern, while submit_enquiry is verb_noun. The single verb 'calculate' breaks the resource_action pattern slightly, but the naming remains readable and predictable overall.
Five tools is well-scoped for a calculator-plus-enquiry server. Each tool covers a necessary interaction: calculate, calculator documentation, enquiry documentation, enquiry fields, and enquiry submission. None feel redundant or missing.
The surface fully covers the calculator input/output flow and the two-step enquiry submission process with consent and confirmation token. No obvious dead ends or missing operations exist for the stated purpose.