enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Ohio Roof Replacement Cost: 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 does so well: it discloses that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, that the service is free, and that the tool also returns who receives details, consent wording, and how confirmation occurs. This gives the agent a solid safety and expectation profile for the action being described.
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 front-loaded with 'Read first' and then delivers the essential facts in a compact list-like flow: no purchase, no guarantee, free, and returned details. The title is somewhat sentence-like and long, but the body has little waste and earns each clause.
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 informational tool with no output schema, the description covers the key content and reassurances, but there is some ambiguity about whether the returns described belong to enquiry_describe or submit_enquiry. Saying 'Also returns who receives the details' is helpful but not fully explicit about this tool's own output versus the sibling tool's behavior.
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 schema already offers complete coverage and leaves nothing ambiguous. The description adds no parameter syntax, which is appropriate; there are no inputs to explain. A baseline of 4 is warranted since no parameter documentation is needed.
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 enquiry_describe as a plain-language explainer: 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does' and 'Read first' signal it is a pre-submission informational tool. The title reinforces that the result is an enquiry with a human, not a purchase or guaranteed quote. It distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by describing rather than performing the action.
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' explicitly tells the agent to consult this tool before taking action, providing a clear when-to-use instruction. It also implicitly distinguishes this tool from submit_enquiry: users should read this description before submitting. It does not enumerate moment-of-use alternatives, but the sequencing guidance is strong enough.
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: one explains the workflow, one defines the input schema, and one performs the actual submission. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
The names all include 'enquiry' and use snake_case, but two use an enquiry_ prefix while the action tool is verb-first as submit_enquiry. This is a minor inconsistency rather than a confusing mix.
Three tools is appropriate for a single, focused enquiry workflow. Each tool earns its place and there is no redundancy or bloat.
The tool set covers the full enquiry lifecycle: understanding the process, retrieving the exact fields, and submitting with a two-step confirmation flow. No significant operations are missing for the stated purpose.