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?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining what the tool returns, and it does: inputs with units/ranges/defaults, outputs, assumptions, and tables. It does not mention response format or side effects, but for a read-only describe tool, the disclosed content is 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?
A single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and enumerates the content categories without redundancy. Every clause earns its place.
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, no-output-schema describe tool, this is complete: the agent knows it receives an explanation of inputs, outputs, assumptions, and tables. There are no hidden requirements or missing usage constraints.
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 and an empty schema, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter detail, but none is needed; it explains what the documented calculator's inputs cover.
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 exactly what the tool does: it describes the calculator's inputs (with units, ranges, defaults), outputs, and underlying assumptions/tables. This clearly distinguishes calculator_describe from its calculate sibling, which actually performs the computation.
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 description implies the tool is for understanding the calculator, but it never explicitly says when to call it instead of calculate. There is no exclusion or conditional guidance, so the agent must infer the use case from the name and sibling list.
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: calculate runs the tax computation, calculator_describe documents the calculator, enquiry_describe explains the enquiry process, enquiry_fields defines the input schema, and submit_enquiry handles submission. There is no meaningful overlap between any two tools.
The naming is readable and grouped by domain, but conventions are mixed: calculate is a plain verb, calculator_describe and enquiry_describe use noun_verb order, enquiry_fields is noun_noun, and submit_enquiry is verb_noun. A consistent verb_noun or describe_* pattern would make the set more predictable.
Five tools is an appropriate size for a focused calculator-plus-enquiry server. Each tool covers a distinct piece of the workflow and none feel redundant or decorative.
The calculator side is complete with calculate and calculator_describe, and the enquiry side has field introspection, process disclosure, and two-step submission. The only minor gap is the lack of any post-submission status or history tool, but the flow is designed around email confirmation so this is not a critical omission.