enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Metal Roof Cost Calculator: 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 behavioral burden, and it does well: it reveals that the tool returns who receives the details, the consent wording, and how the person confirms. It also clarifies key user-facing outcomes such as 'it is free' and 'no quote is guaranteed.'
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 and front-loaded with the most important usage signal ('Read first'). Every sentence earns its place: what the tool does, what it does not do, and what it returns.
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 zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides enough context for an agent to know exactly why this tool exists, when to read it, and what information it will return. Nothing essential is missing for a describe-style tool.
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, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The schema already fully covers the empty parameter set, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter-related content.
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 specific verb-resource pair: it 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does' on the Metal Roof Cost Calculator. It also clearly differentiates itself from the actual submission action by clarifying that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid 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?
The opening 'Read first' gives a clear directive to consult this tool before taking action, and the description explains what kind of information the agent will gain. It does not explicitly name when to prefer sibling tools, but the 'not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote' framing implicitly tells the agent this is informational rather than transactional.
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.