enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Employer CPP EI Calculator: 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 transparency burden. It clearly discloses what submit_enquiry does not do (no purchase, order, payment, guaranteed quote), notes that it is free, and describes what is returned. This is strong behavioral disclosure for an information-style tool.
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 compact and front-loaded with the most important cue ('Read first'). Every sentence adds distinct value: defining the tool, setting accurate expectations, and listing what the returned explanation covers. No filler or redundancy.
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 is fully sufficient. It explains the domain context, the nature of the process, key constraints, and the content of the returned explanation. An agent can accurately decide to invoke it and know what to expect.
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 there are no parameter ambiguities to document. The description appropriately focuses on behavior and output rather than inputs, matching the baseline for a no-parameter 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 states exactly what the tool does: it explains what submit_enquiry does in the Employer CPP EI Calculator context. It also draws clear boundaries by saying no purchase occurs, no quote is guaranteed, and the service is free, which prevents the agent from confusing this with an action tool.
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 opening 'Read first' implies this should be used before engaging with submit_enquiry, but it does not explicitly address when to use this versus sibling tools like calculate, calculator_describe, or enquiry_fields. Usage guidance is present only by implication.
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.