enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Malta Payroll 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, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does so well: it emphasizes that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, and that it is free. It also states what content is returned. It does not explicitly say this tool itself is read-only, but the describe-style nature and zero parameters make that clear enough.
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' and moves efficiently from purpose to key caveats to return contents. Each sentence earns its place, though a slightly sharper separation between describing this tool and describing submit_enquiry would make it tighter.
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 is quite complete: it explains the context, the key guarantees, and what information is returned. It would be more complete if it explicitly stated that calling this tool does not submit an enquiry, but the intended usage is strongly implied.
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 there is no parameter detail to add beyond the schema. The description correctly focuses on what the tool returns rather than invocation arguments, matching the 0-parameter baseline.
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 a specific purpose: it plainly explains what submit_enquiry does on the Malta Payroll Calculator, positioning this tool as the explanatory counterpart to submit_enquiry. The title and 'Read first' further signal what the user gets. It is clear but not fully differentiated from the other describe-style sibling, 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?
'Read first' is a useful directive that implies this tool should be consulted before acting on submit_enquiry. It provides clear context but does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives. Still, the placement and wording make the intended usage reasonably obvious.
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 serves a clearly distinct purpose: calculate performs the salary computation, calculator_describe documents it, enquiry_describe explains the submission process, enquiry_fields lists the input fields, and submit_enquiry handles the actual submission. There is no meaningful overlap that would cause an agent to select the wrong tool.
The names are readable but follow mixed conventions: action-style names like calculate and submit_enquiry sit alongside noun_verb names like calculator_describe and enquiry_describe, plus the noun_noun enquiry_fields. The pattern is not chaotic, but it is not consistently verb_noun across the set.
Five tools is well-scoped for a site centered on a salary calculator and a related enquiry workflow. Each tool earns its place and there is no bloat or sense of missing helper tools.
The set covers the calculator domain and the enquiry workflow end to end: calculation, calculator documentation, enquiry explanation, field discovery, and two-step submission with confirmation. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the apparent purpose.