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 disclosure burden. It openly says the tool returns inputs, outputs, assumptions, and tables, making its informational, read-only nature clear. It does not detail response format or side effects, but none are expected for a describe 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 one tight phrase with no filler, listing the three relevant content categories. It loses a point for being a sentence fragment that slightly overlaps with the title rather than stating the tool's action directly.
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 parameterless, documentation-style tool, the description covers the key things an agent needs: what the tool returns and the scope of the calculator. It could be more complete by mentioning that actual calculations belong to the calculate sibling and by describing the return format, but these are minor gaps.
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 schema leaves nothing to explain; per rubric the baseline is 4. The description also adds useful context about the calculator's parameter characteristics (units, ranges, defaults), even though those are not tool parameters.
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 identifies the specific resource (the Statutory redundancy calculator) and enumerates the content returned: inputs with units/ranges/defaults, outputs, assumptions, and tables. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as calculate or enquiry_describe.
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 intended use is implied: an agent needing to know the calculator's inputs, outputs, assumptions, or underlying tables can call this tool. However, it never states when to use this instead of calculate or enquiry_describe, nor does it mention any 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 clearly distinct role: running the calculator, describing the calculator, explaining the enquiry process, providing the enquiry field schema, and submitting the enquiry. There is no meaningful overlap between tools.
Names are readable and consistently snake_case, but the verb/noun pattern is mixed: calculate and submit_enquiry are verb-first, while calculator_describe and enquiry_describe are noun-first, and enquiry_fields is noun-noun. This is not chaotic, but it lacks a single predictable convention.
Five tools is well-scoped for a focused statutory redundancy calculator with an enquiry submission workflow. Each tool covers a distinct part of the user journey without redundancy or bloat.
The set covers the full lifecycle: computing a redundancy payment, understanding the calculator, understanding the enquiry process, retrieving the exact form fields, and submitting with consent. There are no obvious missing operations that would strand an agent.