enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Scaffolding Cost 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 provided, the description carries the full burden, and it succeeds. It explicitly states what does NOT happen (nothing bought, ordered, or paid; no quote guaranteed; free), what it returns (recipient, consent wording, confirmation method), and the overall behavior of starting an enquiry with human providers.
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 tightly written and every sentence adds value: a directive, the core action, the key exclusions, and the return information. The important safety-oriented framing ('nothing is bought... no quote guaranteed... free') is front-loaded.
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, no-output-schema descriptive tool, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what the tool does, what it does not do, and what it returns. No essential information 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?
This tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add beyond the empty input schema. The baseline of 4 applies, and no meaningful parameter semantics are missing.
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 states plainly that this tool explains what submit_enquiry does, using a specific verb ('states') and a clear resource ('submit_enquiry' on Scaffolding Cost Calculator). It also differentiates itself from the actual submission tool by emphasizing this is information, not a purchase or guaranteed quote.
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?
'Read first' gives explicit positioning as a precursor to submit_enquiry, and the description makes clear this tool is informational rather than the action tool. It does not enumerate all sibling alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.
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 purpose: calculate runs the calculator, calculator_describe explains its inputs/outputs, enquiry_describe explains the enquiry flow, enquiry_fields lists fields, and submit_enquiry handles submission. There is no ambiguity between them.
Naming conventions are mixed: 'calculate' is a bare verb, 'calculator_describe' and 'enquiry_describe' are noun-verb, 'enquiry_fields' is noun-noun, and 'submit_enquiry' is verb-noun. The style is inconsistent, making it harder to predict tool names.
With only 5 tools, the set is well-scoped for a calculator with an enquiry submission flow. Each tool earns its place and the count is appropriate for the domain.
The surface covers the full lifecycle: calculating costs, understanding the calculator, understanding the enquiry process, getting the required fields, and submitting an enquiry with confirmation. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.