enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on M&A Advisor Fees: 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, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it discloses that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid; that no quote is guaranteed; that the enquiry is free; and that the returned content includes recipient details, consent wording, and confirmation mechanism. This gives the agent meaningful behavioral context beyond the tool name.
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 four short sentences that cover purpose, key constraints, and return content without filler. The most important instruction ('Read first') is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.
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, no-output-schema describe tool, the description covers the essential context: what submit_enquiry does, the non-purchase and no-guarantee caveats, the cost, and the returned information. It could more explicitly contrast with calculator_describe/enquiry_fields, but nothing required to call this tool correctly is missing.
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 is 4. The description appropriately says nothing about inputs because there are none to document; the schema already provides complete coverage.
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 states clearly that this is a read-first explainer for submit_enquiry, naming the specific operation ('starts an enquiry with human providers who quote directly') and the domain (M&A Advisor Fees). It also distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by describing rather than performing the submission, and the title reinforces the non-purchase framing.
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 explicit timing guidance: consult this tool before acting on submit_enquiry. It clearly explains what submit_enquiry does so an agent can decide whether that tool fits, but it does not explicitly name alternatives such as calculator_describe or enquiry_fields or state 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 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.