enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on STR Rules Check: 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 behavioral disclosure burden. It does this well by explicitly stating that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, and that the tool is free. It also discloses what the tool returns: who receives details, consent wording, and how the person confirms.
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 short and front-loaded with 'Read first,' then delivers the essential behavioral facts in two more sentences. Minor redundancy with the title and the unexplained 'STR Rules Check' abbreviation keep it from being a perfect 5.
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 descriptive tool, the description covers what the tool does, what effects it does not have, and what information it returns. It is complete enough for its likely role as an explainer before submit_enquiry, though 'STR Rules Check' remains undefined and no output format is described.
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 has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to explain. The description appropriately focuses on behavior and return value rather than inputs, which aligns with the baseline for no-parameter tools.
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 states that the tool 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does on STR Rules Check' and lists the key behaviors and returns. It references a specific sibling tool, submit_enquiry, which helps distinguish it from the checker and enquiry sibling tools. The phrase 'STR Rules Check' is unexplained, which slightly reduces clarity.
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 directive 'Read first' strongly implies that this tool should be consulted before using submit_enquiry. However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives like enquiry_fields or submit_enquiry itself, and it provides no exclusion criteria.
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 role: checker_start initializes the guide, checker_answer progresses through it, and checker_tree provides the full end-to-end map. Similarly, enquiry_describe explains the process, enquiry_fields supplies the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the submission. No two tools are easily confused.
Tool names are grouped by domain prefixes (checker_ and enquiry_), but the suffixes mix verbs and nouns (start, answer, tree, describe, fields) and submit_enquiry breaks the prefix pattern. This is readable and predictable but lacks a single consistent verb_noun convention.
With six tools, the set is well within the ideal range and appropriately sized for two connected functions: a decision guide and an enquiry submission flow. Each tool covers one necessary step without redundancy or bloat.
The checker tools cover the full interaction lifecycle: starting the guide, answering step-by-step, and viewing the entire tree. The enquiry tools cover explanation, field specification, and the two-step submission process, so there are no obvious gaps for the stated domain.