enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on SR&ED Claim 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 behavioral disclosure burden. It adds meaningful context: nothing is bought, ordered, or paid; no quote is guaranteed; the operation is free. It also discloses what the tool returns: who receives the details, the consent wording, and how confirmation happens. This is strong for a describe-style tool, though it does not address side effects or permissions.
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,' immediately followed by the tool's explanatory role, key caveats, and return contents. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy or filler.
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?
Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description gives the agent enough to know what the tool returns and why it matters. Given the simple, parameterless nature of the tool, the description is complete for correct selection and 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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter behavior; it instead focuses on the return value and conceptual context, which is appropriate for a parameterless helper tool.
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 a specific purpose: it is the 'Read first' tool that plainly explains what submit_enquiry does on the SR&ED Claim Calculator. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools like calculate and submit_enquiry itself by positioning it as the descriptive prerequisite rather than the action.
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 imperative 'Read first' explicitly signals when to use this tool: before using submit_enquiry. It also clarifies what an enquiry is not (not a purchase, not guaranteed, free), which helps prevent misuse. However, it does not explicitly discuss alternatives beyond submit_enquiry or state when not to use other siblings.
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.