enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on UAE Corporate Tax 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 full burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only (nothing is bought or paid), that it returns specific information (who receives details, consent wording, confirmation process), and that the underlying enquiry is free with no guaranteed quote. This goes beyond a simple 'describes submit_enquiry' and explains the tool's output and the nature of the service. It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but for a describe tool these are not critical. Slight gap: it doesn't explicitly state there are no side effects, but the content implies it.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the critical instruction 'Read first.' It then states the purpose plainly, clarifies what it is not, and enumerates the return contents. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy. The title also adds clarity without being excessively long.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is complete. It explains the tool's purpose, the nature of the enquiry (free, human-provided, no guarantee), and what information the user will receive. The description covers all necessary context for an agent to decide to call this tool and to understand the result. Nothing essential is missing.
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 schema coverage is 100% by default. The description adds no parameter details because there are none to describe. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adequately compensates by explaining what the tool returns, which is the only relevant information an agent needs. No further parameter explanation is required.
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 verb ('read first', 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does') and a clear resource (UAE Corporate Tax Calculator). It differentiates from siblings by explicitly contrasting with the actual submission tool and clarifying it is not a purchase or guaranteed quote. The title reinforces the purpose. This is unmistakably a describe tool for submit_enquiry.
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' clearly implies this should be used before submitting an enquiry, providing contextual timing. It also clarifies what the tool is not (not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote), which helps agents avoid misusing it as a transaction tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternative describe tools like calculator_describe or enquiry_fields, leaving some ambiguity about when to prefer this over those siblings. The guidance is clear enough but not exhaustive.
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.