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 provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the informational payload (inputs, outputs, assumptions, tables), which is good, but it does not explicitly state that the tool only describes and performs no calculation or side effects. The name 'describe' partially compensates.
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 a single, tightly scoped sentence fragment that front-loads the core content categories. Every word contributes value, and there is no redundancy or 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 simple, parameterless describe tool without an output schema, the description adequately covers what an agent will learn: inputs, outputs, assumptions, and tables. It could be slightly more explicit about the return format or that this is documentation, but overall it is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.
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 is empty, so there are no parameters that need explanation. The description refers to the calculator model's inputs, not tool parameters, which is appropriate for a describe-style tool.
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 identifies the tool's content: the calculator's inputs with units/ranges/defaults, outputs, assumptions, and tables. It does not contain an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'describes,' and it does not verbally distinguish itself from calculate, but the title and sibling names make the purpose reasonably clear.
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 that this tool is used when one needs the calculator's inputs, outputs, assumptions, or backing tables, especially versus calculate. However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool instead of alternatives, and it gives no exclusions or conditions.
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: calculate runs the cost model, enquiry_describe explains what an enquiry does, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the submission. There is no meaningful overlap between them.
All names use snake_case, but the pattern is mixed: calculate is a bare verb, submit_enquiry is verb_noun, enquiry_describe is noun_verb, and enquiry_fields is noun_noun. The names are still readable and understandable, but they do not follow one consistent convention.
At roughly four to five tools, the set is well-scoped for a narrow site workflow covering a calculator and an enquiry submission flow. Each tool earns its place, and the count feels appropriately lean rather than bloated.
The enquiry workflow is well covered with describe, fields, and a two-step submit flow. However, the calculator side only exposes calculate with no equivalent describe or fields tool to discover its input parameters and defaults, which is a notable gap for agent usability.