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?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does state what the tool returns: inputs with units/ranges/defaults, outputs, assumptions, and tables. However, it does not explicitly say this is a read-only/introspection operation or clarify that it does not perform calculations.
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, well-structured sentence that efficiently lists the key content areas: inputs, outputs, assumptions, and tables. There is no redundancy or filler.
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 no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description adequately explains what the tool returns. It is missing only an explicit statement about being an informational/read-only tool and a hint that it complements rather than replaces the calculation tool.
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 baseline is 4. The description's mention of units, ranges, and defaults refers to the content of the described calculator rather than to invocation parameters, which is acceptable since 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 title and description clearly identify this as a tool that describes the PRSI calculator's inputs, outputs, assumptions, and underlying tables. The purpose is specific and distinct from a calculation tool, though the description relies on the tool name rather than explicitly contrasting with the sibling 'calculate' 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 description gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus the sibling 'calculate' tool or the enquiry tools. Usage is only implied by the name and title, with no stated conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.
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 distinct role: calculate runs the calculator, calculator_describe explains it, enquiry_describe explains the enquiry process, enquiry_fields provides field metadata, and submit_enquiry performs the two-step submission. There is no meaningful overlap between the tools.
Naming conventions are mixed: calculate and submit_enquiry are verb-first, while calculator_describe and enquiry_describe place the noun first and enquiry_fields is a noun phrase. The inconsistency makes the set feel less predictable, though still readable.
Five tools is well-scoped for a single calculator plus enquiry workflow. Each tool earns a place and the count is neither thin nor bloated.
The surface covers both major functions: running/explaining the PRSI calculation and describing/submitting an enquiry with all needed metadata and consent flow. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations within the stated domain.