enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Sellable Score: 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 present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It meaningfully discloses key traits: the enquiry is free, no payment is made, no quote is guaranteed, and it returns who receives the details, consent wording, and confirmation method. This goes well beyond a simple 'describes' statement, though it does not explicitly address whether the tool itself has side effects (e.g., whether it sends anything).
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 front-loaded with 'Read first' and uses short, punchy sentences that each convey a distinct fact. There is slight redundancy with the title (both mention 'not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote'), but the repetition is justified as a reinforcing safety message. Overall it is tight and easily scannable.
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 simple 0-parameter describe tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential ground: what it explains, what the user can expect, and what the returned explanation contains. It could more explicitly connect to the wider enquiry flow (e.g., 'use before enquiry_fields'), but 'Read first' plus naming submit_enquiry provides enough context 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 tool has 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter definitions to clarify. The description instead focuses on return content, which is appropriate here since parameter semantics are irrelevant.
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 function: 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Sellable Score.' The verb 'states' plus the resource 'what submit_enquiry does' makes the purpose unambiguous. It also differentiates from siblings by clarifying it is not the actual submission tool and that no purchase or guaranteed quote is involved.
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 phrase 'Read first' gives a clear usage signal: this tool should be used before submit_enquiry. It also clarifies what the tool does not do ('Nothing is bought, ordered or paid; no quote is guaranteed'), which helps distinguish it from purchase or quote tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or provide exclusion conditions for checker_* or enquiry_fields.
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.
The six tools split cleanly into two workflows: the Exit readiness checker (start, answer, tree) and the Sellable Score enquiry (describe, fields, submit). Even the closest pair, enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields, are clearly separated by purpose: one explains the workflow, the other defines the input schema.
Tools consistently use snake_case and meaningful domain prefixes: checker_* and enquiry_*. However, there is no uniform verb_noun pattern: checker_start, checker_tree and enquiry_fields are noun-like, while submit_enquiry is verb-first and checker_answer is ambiguous between noun and command.
Six tools is well-scoped for a server covering two distinct features: a decision guide and an enquiry form. Each tool has a clear role and none feel redundant or unnecessary.
The checker workflow is fully covered: start, navigate with answers, and access the full decision tree. The enquiry workflow is also complete: describe the process, provide fields, and submit in a two-step confirmation flow with consent and token handling.