calculateRun the Retirement visa threshold calculator calculator: Currency of the published figures; Monthly income to show; Annual income to show; Savings or deposit to show. Missing inputs fall back to their documented defaults.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| age | No | Your age at application | |
| country | No | Which country? | es |
| pension | No | Do you have a lifetime pension? | 1 |
| dependants | No | Dependants applying with you |
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?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It only says missing inputs fall back to defaults; it does not disclose whether the operation has side effects, requires auth, or what happens with invalid inputs. Worse, the listed inputs conflict with the actual schema, which is misleading behaviorally.
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, but it contains a typo ('calculator calculator') and a semicolon-delimited list of unrelated inputs that wastes space and misleads. It lacks a clean structure of purpose, usage, and behavior.
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 tool with four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain the calculation, its actual inputs, and expected output. It covers none of these, instead listing parameters contradicted by the schema, making the description fundamentally inadequate for correct invocation.
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 schema documents all four parameters (age, country, pension, dependants) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. But the description adds a list of phantom inputs (currency, monthly income, annual income, savings/deposit) that do not exist in the schema, and it fails to add any meaning for the real parameters, so it actually degrades parameter understanding.
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 says 'Run the Retirement visa threshold calculator calculator,' which names a specific verb and resource, so an agent can tell it invokes the calculator. However, it is redundant ('calculator calculator'), and it lists inputs (currency, monthly income, annual income, savings/deposit) that are not in the schema, muddying what the tool actually does.
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 guidance on when to use calculate versus sibling tools such as calculator_describe or submit_enquiry. There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative selection context.
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.
Tool purposes are mostly distinct: calculate runs the calculator, calculator_describe explains it, and the three enquiry tools split process description, field schema, and submission. The only mild ambiguity is between enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields, as both are descriptive, though their descriptions clearly separate behavior from schema.
Names mix conventions: calculate and submit_enquiry are verb-first, while calculator_describe and enquiry_describe are noun-first, and enquiry_fields is a noun phrase. The names remain readable and snake_case is consistent, but the pattern is not uniform.
Five tools is well-scoped for this site: two for the calculator and three for the enquiry flow. Each tool covers a distinct step without redundancy.
The calculator journey is fully supported with describe and calculate, and the enquiry journey is fully supported with process description, field schema, and a two-step consent-based submit. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the intended use.