enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Incorporate Where: 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly: it states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, that it is free, and that it returns who receives details, the consent wording, and confirmation method. This gives the agent critical expectations about costs, guarantees, and privacy-related behavior.
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 about 55 words across three sentences and is front-loaded with 'Read first.' Every sentence contributes, though there is minor redundancy between 'Nothing is bought, ordered or paid' and 'it is free,' and the title partially repeats the same assurances.
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 simple 0-parameter, no-output-schema tool with no annotations, the description is nearly complete: it defines purpose, flow mechanics, non-financial nature, and return contents. It could go one step further by explicitly stating that the tool itself does not submit an enquiry, but 'Read first' and 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does' largely cover that.
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 0 parameters, so there is no schema coverage burden. The description appropriately focuses on what the tool communicates rather than parameters, which satisfies the baseline for parameterless tools.
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 a clear purpose with a specific verb and resource: it 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does' and enumerates exactly what the enquiry flow entails and returns. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning itself as the 'Read first' explanatory counterpart to submit_enquiry, clearly separate from checker_*, enquiry_fields, and the submit action itself.
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 contextual instruction: the agent should consult this before acting on submit_enquiry. It conveys when to use the tool (before engaging with the enquiry flow), but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, so it stops short of a full 5.
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 serves a clearly distinct purpose: checker_start begins the guide, checker_answer advances it interactively, and checker_tree provides the full structure for end-to-end reasoning. The enquiry_* tools are similarly distinct: describe explains the process, fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the two-step submission. There is no meaningful overlap between any tools.
The tools are grouped under identifiable prefixes: checker_* for the decision guide and enquiry_* for the enquiry workflow. The main deviation is submit_enquiry, which uses verb-first naming rather than the enquiry_ prefix pattern, and there is some mixing of noun and verb suffixes. Overall the pattern is still readable and predictable with only minor inconsistencies.
Six tools is well-scoped for this server's two related purposes: navigating the incorporation shortlist guide and submitting an enquiry. Each tool has a clear, non-redundant role, and the count is appropriate without feeling thin or bloated.
The guide surface is complete: checker_start, checker_answer, and checker_tree cover starting, progressing through, and reasoning about the full decision tree. The enquiry surface is also complete: describe explains the process, fields provides the input schema, and submit_enquiry handles both validation and confirmed submission. No obvious dead ends or missing operations are apparent.