enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Georgia 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it states the tool returns who receives details, consent wording, and confirmation method, and clarifies that no purchase, payment, or guaranteed quote occurs. It stops short of explicitly stating that calling this tool itself has no side effects, but the 'Read first' framing strongly implies it.
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 the imperative 'Read first' and conveys all key points in a compact space. Some phrasing is slightly redundant with the title, and the semicolon-heavy sentence makes it a bit dense, but every sentence contributes useful information.
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 is complete: it explains the purpose, the non-transactional nature, and the return contents. An agent can invoke it correctly and know what to expect without additional context.
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 does not add parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed because the schema is empty and no invocation arguments are required.
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 uses a specific verb ('States plainly') tied to a concrete resource (submit_enquiry on Georgia Roof Replacement Cost) and clearly frames this tool as informational rather than transactional. It differentiates from submit_enquiry by emphasizing 'Read first' and listing what is not done (no purchase, no order, no payment, no guaranteed quote).
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?
'Read first' explicitly signals that this tool should be used before acting on submit_enquiry, and the description clarifies it is for explaining what an enquiry entails. It does not explicitly contrast with enquiry_fields, so sibling routing is not fully complete, but the context is clear enough for correct selection.
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 data schema, and one performs the actual submission. There is no functional overlap between them.
All names are snake_case and readable, but the convention is mixed: 'enquiry_describe' and 'enquiry_fields' use a resource-first pattern, while 'submit_enquiry' uses verb-first. This is inconsistent but not chaotic.
Three tools is well-scoped for a single-purpose enquiry submission server. Each tool has a necessary place: describe, schema lookup, and submit.
The tool surface fully covers the expected workflow for this domain: understand the process, retrieve field definitions, and submit an enquiry with consent and confirmation. No obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated purpose.