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 full burden of behavior disclosure. It reveals the content of the response: inputs with units, ranges, and defaults, outputs, assumptions, and tables. This gives an accurate expectation of what the tool returns without overpromising.
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, front-loaded sentence that captures every important aspect of the tool's purpose and content with no filler. It is concise while remaining fully informative.
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 documentation/describe tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient detail about what the returned information covers. It could marginally benefit from noting that this is a read-only description rather than a calculation, but the title and sibling context make that clear.
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 the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description appropriately focuses on the documentation content rather than inputs to this 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 clearly states this tool returns information about the calculator's inputs, outputs, and assumptions, and the title reinforces it describes the calculator. It distinguishes itself from a calculation tool, though it does not explicitly name the sibling '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 usage is implied: call this when you need to understand what the calculator does, its inputs, outputs, and assumptions. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or compare it to the 'calculate' sibling, but the describe-versus-calculate distinction is reasonably obvious.
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: calculate runs the calculator, calculator_describe explains it, enquiry_describe explains the enquiry flow, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the two-step submission. There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between any pair.
The names are readable and consistently snake_case, but the pattern is mixed: calculate and submit_enquiry are verb-first, while calculator_describe, enquiry_describe, and enquiry_fields are noun-first. A consistent verb_noun pattern such as describe_calculator, describe_enquiry, and get_enquiry_fields would improve predictability.
Five tools is a well-scoped set for a site with two distinct workflows: the notice calculator and the enquiry submission. Each tool earns its place, and the count is neither thin nor bloated.
The calculator workflow is complete with both execution and description, and the enquiry workflow covers overview, field schema, and the full two-step consent-based submission process. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated purpose.