enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on PRSI 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 full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is an informational tool that 'States' and 'returns' content, and it details what information is included: who receives the details, consent wording, and confirmation method. It also clarifies that the underlying enquiry is free and non-binding.
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 short, front-loaded with the important 'Read first' directive, and every sentence earns its place: what the tool explains, the key caveats, and what the response contains. There is no filler or repetition of schema information.
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 description helper with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the purpose, the behavior of submit_enquiry, and the contents of the return value. The only minor gap is that it does not explicitly state that this tool itself is side-effect-free or map out relationships to all sibling tools, but those are not critical for correct usage.
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 description needs to add little parameter-level meaning. It appropriately focuses on describing what the call returns rather than inventing placeholder parameter guidance.
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 job: to explain what submit_enquiry does, including that it starts an enquiry, involves no purchase or payment, does not guarantee a quote, and is free. It also names the sibling tool it describes and enumerates the content returned, so there is no ambiguity about its purpose.
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' and the phrase 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does' give clear contextual guidance: this is the tool to consult before using submit_enquiry. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as calculator_describe or enquiry_fields, nor does it say exactly when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.
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.