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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool returns documentation-like content, but it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, performs no calculations, or has no side effects. The scope is clear but the behavioral guarantees are implicit.
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 one well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and enumerates exactly what the tool returns. Every clause contributes meaning, with no filler or redundancy.
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 descriptive tool with no input parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential content: inputs, outputs, assumptions, and underlying tables. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly noting there are no required parameters or by pointing users to 'calculate' for the actual computation, but it is adequate.
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, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description adds context about calculator-level inputs (units, ranges, defaults), which is useful even though those are not API parameters. 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 what the tool provides: the calculator's inputs with units/ranges/defaults, its outputs, and its assumptions and tables. It is clearly descriptive rather than computational, which helps distinguish it from the sibling 'calculate', though it does not explicitly name that sibling.
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 for understanding the calculator's inputs, outputs, and assumptions, rather than for performing calculations. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus 'calculate' or other siblings, so the routing is left to inference.
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 fee calculator, calculator_describe explains the calculator, enquiry_describe explains the enquiry process, enquiry_fields lists form fields, and submit_enquiry submits the two-step enquiry. No overlap or ambiguity between them.
Naming is mixed: calculate is a bare verb, calculator_describe and enquiry_describe follow a noun_describe pattern, enquiry_fields is noun_noun, and submit_enquiry is verb_noun. The patterns are readable but not consistent, requiring a bit more effort to infer tool behavior from names.
Five tools is well-scoped for a server that covers both a calculator and an enquiry flow. Each tool has a distinct role and the count feels neither thin nor bloated.
The server covers its full lifecycle: users can calculate fees, understand the calculator, learn about the enquiry process, get the required fields, and submit the enquiry with confirmation. There are no missing operations that would leave an agent stuck.