enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Get 409A Valuation: 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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the informational nature by saying 'States plainly' and 'Also returns', and it sets expectations about free, non-binding enquiries. But it never explicitly says that enquiry_describe itself is read-only and triggers no external action, which is a meaningful omission given the possible confusion with submit_enquiry.
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 and front-loads the main purpose, but the structure is somewhat awkward: the fragment 'Read first.' is terse and the clause 'Also returns...' lacks a clear grammatical subject. The sentence flows could be tightened and reorganized for better readability while preserving the same 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, the description conveys the core purpose and some return details. However, it does not explicitly state that calling this tool is harmless and does not submit anything, and the relationship to submit_enquiry as a pre-submission explanation is only implied by 'Read first.' This leaves room for an agent to misunderstand the tool's side effects and role.
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 the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously), so the baseline is 4. The description adds context about the kind of content returned, which is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect. No parameter explanation is 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 that the tool's role is to 'state plainly what submit_enquiry does on Get 409A Valuation', identifying it as an explanatory resource for the sibling tool. It differentiates itself by naming submit_enquiry and contrasting with purchase/quote. However, the sentence 'Also returns...' has an ambiguous subject, making it slightly unclear whether the tool itself or submit_enquiry returns that information.
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' gives an explicit usage context, implying this should be consulted before taking any enquiry-related action. It also clarifies that no purchase or guaranteed quote is involved. However, it does not reference sibling tools like enquiry_fields or checker_start, nor does it explicitly state when not to use this tool, leaving some usage guidance implied rather than explicit.
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.
The two functional areas are clearly separated: checker_* tools handle an interactive decision tree, while enquiry_* tools handle the enquiry submission flow. Within each group, each tool has a distinct role: start/answer/tree for the checker, and describe/fields/submit for the enquiry.
All names are lowercase snake_case and mostly use domain prefixes (checker_ and enquiry_), which is easy to read and predict. The minor inconsistency is submit_enquiry, which reverses the domain/action order compared to enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields.
Six tools is a well-scoped count: three tools cover the interactive checklist flow and three cover the enquiry submission flow. Each tool has a clear purpose and none feel redundant.
The checker flow is complete: start begins, answer progresses, and tree provides the full decision graph for end-to-end reasoning. The enquiry flow is also complete: describe explains the process, fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry handles both validation and final submission with confirmation.