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?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the core behavior: it returns a description of inputs, outputs, assumptions, and tables. It does not explicitly state that the tool itself performs no calculation or has no side effects, but the describe-oriented wording makes that largely apparent.
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 sentence that front-loads the key content: inputs, outputs, and assumptions/tables. Every phrase adds value and there is no redundancy.
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 descriptive tool, the description is fully sufficient. It names all the categories of information an agent would expect to receive, leaving no obvious gaps.
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 baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description adds no parameter details for this call itself, but it does clarify that the tool describes the underlying calculator's parameters rather than accepting its own, which is enough.
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 precisely states that the tool conveys the calculator's inputs (with units, ranges, defaults), outputs, and underlying assumptions/tables. Combined with the name 'calculator_describe' and title, it is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the sibling's 'calculate'.
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 purpose implies this should be used when an agent needs to understand the calculator's inputs/outputs before calculating, and the sibling list includes 'calculate' as the natural alternative. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over other tools or any 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 serves a distinct purpose: calculate runs the calculator, calculator_describe explains it, enquiry_describe explains the enquiry flow, enquiry_fields lists inputs, and submit_enquiry performs the submission. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Tool names mix styles: calculate and submit_enquiry use verb_noun, while calculator_describe and enquiry_describe use noun_verb, and enquiry_fields is noun_noun. The pattern is inconsistent and does not follow a single predictable convention, though the names are still descriptive.
With 5 tools covering two clear functions (calculator and enquiry), the count is well-scoped. Each tool earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary bloat.
The surface fully covers the domain: calculation with execution and description, and enquiry with explanation, field listing, and a two-step submission flow. There are no missing operations or dead ends for the stated purpose.