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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what content will be returned (inputs, outputs, assumptions, tables), but says nothing about side effects, authorization requirements, or the output format. For a read-only describe-style tool, this is adequate but not rich.
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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the three things an agent will learn: inputs with units/ranges/defaults, outputs, and assumptions/tables. There is no filler, and the title adds necessary context about the specific calculator.
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 documentation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential scope well: it lists inputs, outputs, assumptions, and tables. It lacks an explicit pointer to the sibling 'calculate' tool or details about the returned format, but overall it is sufficiently complete for its simplicity.
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 and 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameter meanings for the description to add. The phrase 'inputs this calculator takes' refers to the underlying calculator's domain inputs rather than MCP tool parameters, which is mildly ambiguous but not harmful given the empty schema.
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 title and description together clearly identify a documentation/reference tool for the Malta shareholder refund calculator. It names exactly what the tool covers: inputs, outputs, assumptions, and underlying tables. However, the description lacks an explicit verb such as 'describes' and does not contrast with the sibling 'calculate' tool.
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?
Usage is implied: an agent would call this when it needs to understand the calculator's inputs, outputs, or assumptions. The description does not explicitly state when to use this versus 'calculate', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.
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 responsibility: calculate performs the computation, calculator_describe explains the calculator, enquiry_describe explains the enquiry flow, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the submission. There is no real risk of selecting the wrong tool for a given user need.
Naming style is mixed: calculate and submit_enquiry are verb-first, while calculator_describe and enquiry_describe are noun-first descriptors, and enquiry_fields is noun-noun. The names are readable, but they do not follow a single predictable pattern across the tool set.
Five tools is well-scoped for a focused calculator-plus-enquiry server. Each tool covers a necessary piece of the workflow without redundancy or bloat.
The surface fully covers the apparent domain: calculator execution, calculator metadata, enquiry process documentation, enquiry field schema, and the two-step consent-based submission flow. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated purpose.