enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Malta Work Permit Checker: 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 provided, the description fully carries behavioral disclosure: it states the action is free, non-committal, and involves human providers who quote directly. It also discloses what is returned—who receives details, consent wording, and confirmation method—providing a clear behavioral contract.
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?
Three tight sentences front-load the critical 'Read first' instruction, then state the core behavior, exclusions, and return content. Every sentence earns its place and the description is compact enough to scan quickly.
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?
Given no input parameters and no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: when to call it, what the enquiry involves, cost and guarantee status, and what the response will contain. This is complete for a helper tool that introduces a sibling.
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 and the schema already covers this fully, so there is nothing extra for the description to explain. The baseline of 4 applies because there is no parameter surface to elaborate on.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: it explains what submit_enquiry does, namely 'starts an enquiry with human providers who quote directly.' The title and description clearly differentiate it from the sibling submit_enquiry and from a purchase or guaranteed quote, so an agent knows this is the descriptive, read-first 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?
Opens with the direct instruction 'Read first,' explicitly telling the agent to use this before acting on submit_enquiry. It also clarifies when this tool is not the right path by emphasizing that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid and no quote is guaranteed, giving the agent an explicit exclusion.
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.
The tools are cleanly split into two domains: the checker decision guide (start, answer, tree) and the enquiry submission flow (describe, fields, submit). Each tool has a distinct role with no overlapping responsibilities, so an agent can easily select the right one.
Most names follow a noun_prefix pattern (checker_*, enquiry_*) but the verb placement varies: checker_start and checker_answer are noun-verb, while enquiry_describe is noun-verb and submit_enquiry is verb-noun. Slight inconsistency but still readable and predictable within each group.
Six tools is an appropriate scope for a focused site: three for the interactive guide and three for the enquiry workflow. No redundancy and no missing obvious operations, each tool earns its place.
The tool surface fully covers the stated purpose: the checker guide can be traversed (start, answer, tree) and the enquiry flow is complete (describe, fields, submit). There are no dead ends or missing lifecycle steps for either workflow.