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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does indicate that the tool concerns the calculator's inputs, outputs, and underlying assumptions, which implies a descriptive, read-only tool. However, it does not explicitly state that no calculation is performed, what the tool returns, or any limitations.
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?
One concise sentence that efficiently enumerates all three content areas: inputs, outputs, and assumptions/tables. Every part of the sentence earns its place, and the key topics are 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 parameterless descriptive tool, this description is largely sufficient: it tells the agent what information the tool covers. It could be more complete by explicitly stating that the tool takes no parameters and by clarifying the output format, but the absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by the clear content scope.
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, so there is no parameter documentation burden on the description. The description's talk of 'inputs this calculator takes' refers to the calculator being described, not the tool's own parameters, and while slightly ambiguous, it does not harm invocation since no parameters 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 clearly identifies the resource (SR&ED investment tax credit calculator) and the tool's content: inputs with units/ranges/defaults, outputs, assumptions, and tables. It is not a tautology and is clearly about describing the calculator, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself 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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'calculate'. The name and description imply it is for understanding the calculator rather than running calculations, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
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 clear role: calculate runs the calculator, calculator_describe explains the calculator, enquiry_describe explains the enquiry process, enquiry_fields lists inputs, and submit_enquiry sends the enquiry. There is no practical overlap between execution, metadata, and submission tools.
Naming is mixed: calculate is a bare verb, submit_enquiry is verb_noun, while calculator_describe, enquiry_describe, and enquiry_fields use a noun-first pattern. The names are still readable and somewhat grouped by prefix/suffix, but the conventions are not consistent across the set.
Five tools is well-scoped for this server's purpose: one execution tool, two descriptive-support tools, one field-metadata tool, and one submission tool. Each tool earns its place and there is no sense of bloat or thinness.
The server covers the full user journey: understanding the calculator, running it, understanding the enquiry, retrieving the required fields, and submitting with consent. No obvious dead ends or missing operations are apparent for the stated domain.