enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Football Agent Index: 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 safety burden. It clearly frames the tool as descriptive/read-only ('States', 'returns') rather than performing the enquiry, and it surfaces key facts about the enquiry (no purchase, no guaranteed quote, free). It does not explicitly say 'no side effects,' but the wording makes that evident.
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' directive, and every clause adds either scope, a caveat, or a return detail. 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 parameterless, read-only explainer with no output schema, the description covers purpose, when to call, and what it returns (who receives details, consent wording, confirmation process). Nothing important is missing for an agent 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 an empty schema, so there is no parameter meaning to add. The description focuses on the return content, which is the only input-free behavior an agent needs; baseline 4 applies.
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 exact action ('states plainly what submit_enquiry does') and the resource (Football Agent Index enquiry flow), making clear this is an informational read, not the submission tool itself. It also lists concrete output contents, so an agent will not confuse it with the sibling submit_enquiry.
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 instruction to invoke this before acting, and the description ties it directly to submit_enquiry. It does not spell out when to avoid it or compare with checker_* siblings, so it stops short of full alternative-based guidance.
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 purpose: checker_start initiates the flow, checker_answer advances it, and checker_tree provides the full static tree. The three enquiry tools are equally distinct: describe explains the process, fields defines the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the actual submission.
The naming uses domain prefixes (checker_*, enquiry_*) which helps, but the word ordering is inconsistent: checker_answer and enquiry_describe are noun_verb, checker_tree and enquiry_fields are noun_noun, while submit_enquiry is verb_noun. This mixed convention makes the set slightly less predictable.
Six tools is a well-scoped count for this server. It covers two small workflows without unnecessary duplication or overwhelming the agent.
The checker workflow is fully covered with start, step-by-step answering, and full tree access. The enquiry workflow is also complete: overview, field schema, and a two-step submission process with validation and confirmation.