enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Malta Residency Cost: 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 it does so well: it states that the tool is free, creates no purchase/order/obligation, and does not guarantee a quote. It also reveals what the output covers (recipients, consent wording, confirmation), providing a clear behavioral picture.
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: one imperative lead-in, one sentence defining what the tool says about submit_enquiry, and one sentence listing output contents. No filler or repetition.
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?
Despite having no output schema, the description tells the agent what it gets back and why this is safe/appropriate. For a zero-parameter informational tool, it covers the necessary decision context and return expectations.
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?
There are no parameters and the schema is 100% covered, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description appropriately focuses on return/behavior semantics instead of inventing parameter details.
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 clear purpose: it explains what submit_enquiry does rather than performing the enquiry, and the title emphasizes it is informational ('What you get'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling submit_enquiry by explicitly saying nothing is bought, ordered or paid for, and no quote is guaranteed.
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' gives an explicit signal that this tool should be consulted before using submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly rule out alternative tools or mention enquiry_fields, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance, but the intended context is clear.
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 clear, distinct role: enquiry_describe explains the submission process, enquiry_fields provides the input schema, and submit_enquiry performs the actual submission. There is no meaningful overlap or risk of selecting the wrong tool.
All names include 'enquiry' so the domain is clear, but the pattern is mixed: enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields use an enquiry_ prefix, while submit_enquiry puts the verb first. This is readable but not a consistent verb_noun convention.
Three tools is exactly right for this narrow server purpose. Each tool earns its place: one to understand the flow, one to get the fields, and one to submit the enquiry.
The server fully covers its stated domain: explaining the enquiry process, enumerating fields, validating, and submitting with consent and confirmation. There are no obvious lifecycle gaps for an enquiry-only tool.