enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on MiCA Requirements: 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 carries the full burden and meets it: it states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, that it is free, and that the tool returns the recipient details, consent wording, and confirmation method. This gives an agent a clear safety and side-effect profile before calling it.
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 sentences deliver the essential facts with the directive 'Read first' front-loaded. Every sentence contributes: what the tool describes, what it does not do, and what it returns, with no filler.
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 parameterless, read-only explainer tool with no output schema, the description fully covers invocation timing, safety of the underlying flow, and the content of the returned explanation. An agent has enough information to decide to call it and know what to expect.
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 are no parameters to document; baseline 4 applies. The description adds no parameter-specific information, which is appropriate.
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 action: it 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does on MiCA Requirements,' naming the verb, the resource (submit_enquiry), and the context. The title reinforces the distinction by clarifying the result is an enquiry with a human, not a purchase or guaranteed quote, which separates this descriptive tool from the actual submission workflow.
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 temporal cue to use this tool before submit_enquiry, and the rest of the description makes clear it is the explanatory prerequisite. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use or name the checker_* alternatives, but the primary routing to submit_enquiry 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 clearly distinct role: checker_start, checker_answer, and checker_tree map to different ways of interacting with the decision guide, while enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields, and submit_enquiry cover distinct aspects of the enquiry flow. There is no meaningful overlap that would cause an agent to select the wrong tool.
Tool names follow a clear pattern using 'checker_' and 'enquiry_' prefixes, with the second part indicating the action or resource. The one minor inconsistency is submit_enquiry, which inverts the verb_first ordering compared to enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields, but the overall scheme remains predictable.
Six tools is well-scoped for the server's dual purpose of running a decision checklist and submitting an enquiry. Each tool earns its place, and the count is neither too thin nor bloated.
The checker workflow is complete with start, stepwise answer, and full tree access, while the enquiry workflow covers description, field metadata, and the two-step consent-based submission. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated domain.