enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Ski Transfer Quotes: 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 behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states that the enquiry flow involves nothing being bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, and that it is free. It also says the tool 'returns' recipient details, consent wording, and confirmation process, making the informational, non-mutating nature reasonably clear. It could be more explicit that enquiry_describe itself performs no submission, but the framing and wording are sufficient.
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 compact and front-loaded with 'Read first.' Each sentence contributes distinct value: what the tool states, the key caveats, and the return content. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.
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?
Since there is no output schema, the description compensates by specifying the categories of returned information: who receives the details, the consent wording, and how confirmation happens. It also gives enough domain context to interpret the enquiry flow. It does not provide an exact sample or mention enquiry_fields, but for a zero-parameter informational tool this is adequate.
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 input schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no parameter details because none are needed. It does not invent parameters that do not exist.
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 what the tool does: 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Ski Transfer Quotes' and details the scope (human providers, no purchase, no guaranteed quote). It also lists what the tool returns, making it much more than a label or tautology. It is clearly distinct from the siblings because it describes rather than submits or collects fields.
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 instruction 'Read first' gives an explicit placement cue: use this before submit_enquiry. It also clarifies the context and expectations of an enquiry, which helps an agent decide when to surface this information. However, it does not mention the sibling enquiry_fields or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.
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.
enquiry_describe explains the process, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the submission. There is no semantic overlap between these three concerns.
Two tools share an 'enquiry_' prefix, but submit_enquiry breaks the pattern by leading with the verb. The names are readable and consistent in snake_case, but the convention is mixed rather than uniform.
Three tools is exactly right for an enquiry-submission flow: one for explanation, one for schema, one for submission. Every tool has a distinct role and no tool feels redundant.
The set covers the full lifecycle needed: orienting the user, discovering fields, and submitting with consent and confirmation. There are no obvious dead ends, since submit_enquiry handles both validation and final confirmation.