calculator_describeThe inputs this calculator takes (with units, ranges and defaults), the outputs it returns, and the assumptions and tables behind it.
| 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 says what information is returned (inputs, outputs, assumptions, tables) but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only descriptive tool with no side effects, nor does it mention any limits or caveats about the description itself.
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 entire description is one focused sentence that clearly enumerates the contained information. Every element is purposeful and no filler exists.
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 descriptive tool, the description adequately specifies its scope. It could be slightly more explicit that it is purely informational and not a calculation endpoint, but given the simplicity and sibling context, it is largely complete.
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 accepts zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds relevant context about what would be documented (units, ranges, defaults), but there is no parameter schema to elaborate on.
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 states exactly what the tool does: it describes the calculator's inputs (with units, ranges, defaults), outputs, and underlying assumptions/tables. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling 'calculate', which presumably performs the computation.
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 implies the tool is a reference/help tool to consult before or instead of calculating, but it never explicitly says 'use this when you need to understand the calculator inputs/outputs' or 'do not use this to run calculations'. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
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 performs the cost calculation, calculator_describe explains the calculator, enquiry_describe explains the enquiry flow, enquiry_fields provides the form schema, and submit_enquiry handles submission. There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between them.
The naming conventions are inconsistent: 'calculate' and 'submit_enquiry' are verb-first, while 'calculator_describe', 'enquiry_describe', and 'enquiry_fields' are noun-first or noun-only. The names are readable, but they do not follow a predictable verb_noun pattern.
Five tools is well-scoped for this server's purpose: two calculator tools, two enquiry-description tools, and one submission tool. Each tool earns its place, and there is no bloat or excessive granularity.
The tool set covers the full user journey: understanding the calculator, running it, understanding the enquiry process, getting the required fields, and submitting an enquiry. The two-step consent flow is properly supported by submit_enquiry's token mechanism, so there are no obvious dead ends.