enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Jet Operating 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this well by stating that the enquiry is free, non-binding, and does not guarantee a quote, while also disclosing what the tool returns: who receives the details, consent wording, and confirmation method. This gives the agent accurate expectations about the tool's non-committal, informational nature.
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 'Read first,' which is a valuable directive, and then packs scope, exclusions, cost, and return values into a few sentences. Each sentence contributes meaningful information. It is slightly dense but appropriately sized for an informational tool.
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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool explains, what it does not do, that it is free, and what information it returns. It does not list every recipient or the exact consent wording, but that is acceptable because the tool exists to provide such details on demand.
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 input schema is empty with 0 parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds relevant context by framing the tool as an explainer rather than an action-taking operation. No parameter documentation 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 enquiry_describe 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Jet Operating Cost,' establishing it as an informational companion to the actionable sibling. It is not a tautology and distinguishes itself by clarifying that nothing is bought, ordered, paid, or guaranteed. However, it leans heavily on explaining submit_enquiry rather than explicitly saying 'this tool returns a description,' so purpose clarity is strong but not maximally direct.
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 instruction 'Read first' implies that the agent should consult this tool before using submit_enquiry, which provides some usage sequencing. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives such as calculate or enquiry_fields. Usage guidance is therefore implied rather than fully articulated.
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.