enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Leave Loading Calculator: 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 behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently explains that the described action is free, involves no purchase or payment, and does not guarantee a quote. It also discloses the return contents: recipient details, consent wording, and confirmation method. It does not explicitly mention whether this tool itself is read-only, but its descriptive nature and 'returns' phrasing imply it.
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 compact and front-loads the most important instruction with 'Read first'. Each sentence conveys useful information without repetition, though the title is somewhat long and the phrasing occasionally reads more like user-facing copy than a tool definition.
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 zero-parameter descriptive tool, the description is sufficiently complete: it explains what the tool covers, what the underlying action entails, and what information will be returned. With no output schema, mentioning the return contents specifically helps an agent know what to expect.
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 has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to explain. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description correctly makes no parameter claims that could conflict with the schema.
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 the tool explains what submit_enquiry does on the Leave Loading Calculator, using the verb 'states' with a named resource. It also says the tool returns who receives the details, the consent wording, and how the person confirms. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like calculator_describe.
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' gives clear contextual guidance to consult this description before using submit_enquiry. The description also clarifies what the underlying action does and does not do, such as 'Nothing is bought, ordered or paid' and 'no quote is guaranteed'. It stops short of naming alternatives or explicitly stating when not to use this tool.
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.