enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Own vs Charter: 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 full behavioral burden and does so well: it explicitly states that the enquiry process is free, involves no purchase/order/payment, and does not guarantee a quote. It also discloses what information will be returned, including recipient, consent wording, and confirmation mechanics.
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 concise, front-loaded with "Read first," and every clause adds useful information: the purpose, the non-transactional nature, the free guarantee, and the returned content. No filler or redundant repetition of the tool name or title.
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 tool with no output schema, the description does a good job explaining what the agent will get: recipient details, consent wording, and confirmation method. It does not define the Own vs Charter distinction, but this is likely part of the tool's output content, so the description is reasonably complete for its low complexity.
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, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage, so there is no parameter information the description needs to add. The baseline of 4 applies here because nothing is missing.
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 the tool's purpose: it describes what submit_enquiry does, distinguishing between Own and Charter, and explains that no purchase or payment occurs. It also specifies the returned content (who receives details, consent wording, confirmation method), making the tool's role unambiguous and distinct from actually submitting an enquiry.
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 an explicit usage directive that positions this tool as the prerequisite before using submit_enquiry. The description implicitly tells the agent to consult this before acting, though it does not explicitly mention when to prefer or avoid the sibling checker/fields tools.
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.
The checker tools and enquiry tools are clearly separated by purpose: start/answer/tree handle the decision guide flow, while describe/fields/submit handle the enquiry submission flow. Within each group, each tool has a distinct role with no meaningful overlap.
Most tools follow a clear domain-prefixed naming pattern: checker_start, checker_answer, checker_tree, enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields. The one deviation is submit_enquiry, which reverses the pattern, and checker_tree/enquiry_fields use nouns rather than verbs, but overall the naming remains predictable and readable.
Six tools is well-scoped for this server's two clear workflows: a decision-tree checker and an enquiry submission flow. Each tool serves a necessary function and none feel redundant.
The checker workflow has start, step-by-step progression, and full-tree access, covering all user reasoning paths. The enquiry workflow has description, field schema, and two-step submission with confirmation, leaving no obvious dead ends or missing steps.