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 burden of behavior. It discloses the content scope (inputs, outputs, assumptions, tables), which is useful, but it does not clarify that the tool itself is read-only, how results are returned, or that it does not perform calculations.
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?
A single sentence with no filler. It packs the key content categories into a compact, front-loaded description.
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 covers the essential content categories an agent needs to know. It could be stronger by explicitly saying it returns a description and not a calculation, but the name and sibling context mitigate this.
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 an empty input schema, so there are no useful parameter details to add. The description appropriately references the calculator's inputs rather than the tool's own parameters, which is coherent 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 as providing the calculator's inputs (with units, ranges, defaults), outputs, assumptions, and tables. It is specific and informative, though it does not explicitly name or contrast the sibling calculate tool.
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?
No explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus calculate or enquiry_describe. The description implies it is informational, but it does not state exclusions or alternatives.
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 targets a distinct function: calculating, describing the calculator, describing the enquiry flow, listing enquiry fields, and submitting the enquiry. Even the two 'describe' tools are clearly separated by subject matter (calculator vs. enquiry).
Naming patterns are inconsistent: 'calculate' is a bare verb, 'submit_enquiry' is verb_noun, while 'calculator_describe' and 'enquiry_describe' are noun_verb, and 'enquiry_fields' is noun_noun. The mixed conventions make the toolset feel less predictable.
Five tools is well-scoped for a calculator-plus-enquiry site. Each tool has a clear role and none feel redundant or missing.
The surface covers the full user journey: describe the calculator, run the calculation, understand the enquiry, get the field schema, and submit with consent confirmation. No obvious dead ends or missing operations for this domain.