enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Saudi Company Setup Cost: 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 burden. It discloses that nothing is bought, no quote is guaranteed, and it's free, which clarifies the read-only and non-committal nature. It also states what the tool returns, making its behavior transparent. It doesn't explicitly state it's a read operation, but the context implies it. No contradiction with annotations (none exist).
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the key instruction 'Read first,' and each sentence serves a purpose: stating the tool's role and detailing what it returns. It's efficient and avoids redundancy, with no wasted words.
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 an informational tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is fully complete. It explains the tool's purpose, its content (what it returns), and its behavioral implications (free, no guarantee). Nothing an agent needs to correctly invoke or interpret this tool is missing.
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 100% schema coverage (empty schema), so there's nothing to document. The description adds value by explaining what the tool returns, which compensates for the lack of params. The baseline of 4 is appropriate, as the description enriches the user's understanding of the tool's output without needing to discuss 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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: to read first and understand what submit_enquiry does. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by framing itself as a meta-tool that explains the submission process, not the submission itself. The verb 'describes' and resource 'submit_enquiry' are specific and unambiguous.
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' gives explicit usage guidance, implying it should be consulted before submit_enquiry. It also clarifies what the tool returns (recipient details, consent wording, confirmation method), which helps the agent decide when to call it. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or how it compares to enquiry_fields, leaving a slight gap in routing.
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: one explains the process, one provides the field schema, and one handles submission. There is no overlap; an agent can clearly choose which tool to call based on the step in the workflow.
All names use snake_case and are readable, but the pattern mixes noun-first (enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields) and verb-first (submit_enquiry). This minor inconsistency does not hinder understanding, but a fully uniform verb_noun pattern would be slightly better.
Three tools is perfectly scoped for a focused enquiry submission flow. Each tool serves a necessary step—orientation, data schema, and submission—without redundancy or bloat.
The tools cover the entire enquiry lifecycle: understanding what the process is, getting the required fields, and performing the two-step submission with confirmation. There are no obvious gaps for the stated purpose.