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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that this is an informational tool returning documentation-style content rather than performing a calculation. It does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or describe the format or structure of the returned documentation.
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 with no filler, front-loading the key content and adding useful specifics such as units, ranges, and defaults. It is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the tool.
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 describe tool, the description covers the essential content categories an agent needs to understand what the tool offers. It does not explain how the returned information is structured or how this tool relates to calculate, but those are minor gaps given the tool's informational nature.
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 description need not document tool parameters. The mention of inputs with units, ranges, and defaults clearly refers to the calculator being described, not to call arguments, which avoids confusion.
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 identifies a describe/documentation tool for the Irish statutory notice calculator and lists the content it covers: inputs with units/ranges/defaults, outputs, and assumptions/tables. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling enquiry_describe, but the resource and purpose are evident.
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?
Usage is implied: an agent needing the calculator's input, output, assumption, or table details would use this tool. However, the description does not state when to prefer it over calculate or enquiry_describe, nor does it suggest sequencing such as reading this before calling calculate.
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.
calculate and submit_enquiry are clearly distinct in purpose. enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields both relate to the enquiry flow, but one provides plain-language behavior and consent context while the other gives the structured field schema, so the distinction is mostly clear.
Tool names are inconsistent: calculate is a bare verb, submit_enquiry is verb_noun, while enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields put the noun first. There is no shared convention across the set, making the naming feel fragmented.
Four tools for two core activities plus supporting documentation tools is a reasonable, well-scoped count. However, the stated tool count is five while only four tool definitions were provided, which introduces a small inconsistency.
The enquiry side is well supported with describe, fields, and a two-step submit flow. The calculator side is thinner: only calculate exists, with no equivalent describe or fields tool to expose input keys, defaults, and assumptions, making that half of the domain less discoverable.