enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Malta Property Tax: 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. It discloses the tool's informational nature through 'States' and 'Returns', and it surfaces important caveats: nothing is bought, ordered, or paid; no quote is guaranteed; it is free. It does not explicitly state that the describe call itself is side-effect-free, but no mutating verb is present.
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 three dense sentences with no filler. 'Read first' front-loads the usage decision, followed by scope and return-value details, so 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 informational tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what it returns, and the key caveats. The only gap is that it does not distinguish itself from enquiry_fields, but the agent still has enough to call it correctly.
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 the no-parameter baseline of 4 applies. There are no parameter semantics to document, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: it 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does' and frames itself as the read-first explainer tool. It is clearly differentiated from the sibling action tool submit_enquiry and is not a tautology.
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 imperative 'Read first' explicitly instructs the agent to consult this tool before using submit_enquiry. It does not mention enquiry_fields or state exclusions, but the primary routing is clear and actionable.
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 role: one explains the process, one provides the input schema, and one performs the two-step submission. There is no meaningful overlap between their purposes.
All names use snake_case and revolve around the enquiry concept, but the pattern is mixed: 'enquiry_describe' and 'enquiry_fields' put the noun first, while 'submit_enquiry' uses verb-first order. The names are still readable and reasonably related.
Three tools is exactly right for this narrow, single-purpose workflow: description, field discovery, and submission. Each tool earns its place and there are no redundant or missing operations at this scope.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle of the enquiry flow: reading about it, discovering required fields, and submitting with consent and confirmation. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated purpose.