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 discloses the tool's informational nature and exactly what it covers (inputs, outputs, assumptions, tables), indicating a read-only describe operation with no calculation side effects. It does not mention return format or limitations, but for a pure metadata tool this is acceptable.
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?
Single sentence with no filler; it enumerates the three content areas in a logical order. It is slightly less direct because it lacks a main verb, but every word earns its place.
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 describe tool with no output schema, the description gives enough to know what information will be returned. The main missing piece is an explicit statement that it returns a description rather than performing a calculation, though that is easily inferred from the name and sibling 'calculate.'
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 accepts zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete and the baseline is 4. The description's mention of calculator inputs refers to the domain model being described, not to parameters of this tool, so no parameter documentation is needed. It adds no misleading parameter semantics.
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 identifies the tool as a documentation/metadata resource for the retirement visa threshold calculator, enumerating what it exposes: inputs with units/ranges/defaults, outputs, and underlying assumptions/tables. It does not contain an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'describes,' but the content and tool name make the purpose unambiguous and distinguish it from 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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The context implies it should be read to understand calculator semantics before calling 'calculate,' but the description does not state this or name alternatives. This is implied usage at best.
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.