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 does disclose that the tool returns the calculator's input metadata, outputs, assumptions, and tables, which implies a read-only describe operation. It does not explicitly mention side effects, safety, or return format, but for a describe tool this is a moderate gap.
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 that packs in all essential information without wasted words. It front-loads the calculator context and specifies exactly what content will be included.
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 simple metadata tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the inputs, outputs, assumptions, and tables. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly noting that it returns documentation rather than a calculation result, but overall the agent has enough context to call it appropriately.
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 schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful context by mentioning units, ranges, defaults, outputs, assumptions, and tables, even though there are no parameters to document.
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 resource (the calculator) and the scope: its inputs, outputs, assumptions, and tables. It is distinguishable from the sibling 'calculate' because it describes the calculator rather than performing a calculation, though it does not explicitly say 'use this to get documentation'.
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 description implies this tool is for learning about the calculator's inputs, outputs, and assumptions, which is useful context. However, it never explicitly states when to use this versus 'calculate' or other siblings, leaving the decision to the agent's inference.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct roles: run the calculator, describe the calculator, describe the enquiry process, list enquiry fields, and submit the enquiry. The only mild ambiguity is between enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields, though their descriptions do separate high-level process from field schema.
The names mix conventions: 'submit_enquiry' and 'calculate' use verb-first style, while 'calculator_describe', 'enquiry_describe', and 'enquiry_fields' are noun-first. The names are still readable and intuitive, but the pattern is not consistent.
Five tools is well-scoped for this narrow calculator-plus-enquiry workflow. Each tool has a distinct purpose and the count feels neither bloated nor thin.
The tool set covers the full workflow: understanding the calculator, running it, understanding the enquiry flow, retrieving required fields, and submitting the enquiry with confirmation handling. There are no obvious dead ends for an agent helping a user complete this process.