enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on MPRP 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 transparency burden. It discloses meaningful behavioral traits: nothing is bought, ordered, or paid; no quote is guaranteed; it is free; and it returns who receives details, consent wording, and confirmation. It only stops short of explicitly stating that calling this tool itself is read-only and has no side effects.
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 tightly structured and front-loaded: 'Read first' grabs attention, the next sentence states the core purpose, and the following sentences add essential non-commitment details and return content. No sentence is 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 zero-parameter describe tool with no output schema, this is complete. An agent can determine when to call it, what it explains, and what the returned text covers, and it is clearly positioned as a precursor to submit_enquiry.
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 schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. The description correctly spends no time on inputs and instead clarifies the tool's informational output. Baseline 4 applies for a 0-parameter tool.
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 is specific and action-oriented: it says the tool 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does' on the MPRP Calculator, and the title reinforces that the subject is an enquiry, not a purchase or guaranteed quote. This clearly separates it from action tools like submit_enquiry and from calculator-related siblings.
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' is explicit, front-loaded usage guidance, telling the agent this is the orientation step before submitting an enquiry. It makes the intended context clear, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.
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 purpose: calculate runs the calculator, calculator_describe explains the calculator, enquiry_describe explains the enquiry flow, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry submits. There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between them.
The names are readable but follow mixed conventions: 'calculate' is a bare verb, while 'calculator_describe' and 'enquiry_describe' use noun_verb reversed, and 'enquiry_fields' is a noun phrase. The pattern is not chaotic, but it is inconsistent enough to be noticeable.
Five tools is well-scoped for a calculator-plus-enquiry server. Each tool covers a necessary function without bloat or redundancy.
The toolset fully covers its stated domain: calculating costs, understanding the calculator, understanding the enquiry process, fetching the enquiry fields, and submitting an enquiry. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations.