enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Which Field Software: 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 thoroughly by stating that nothing is purchased, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, that the service is free, and that it returns who receives details, consent wording, and confirmation method.
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?
Three sentences with no filler. The critical usage cue 'Read first' is front-loaded, and every subsequent sentence adds meaningful behavioral or output information. The title also provides a concise summary of the user-facing outcome.
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 zero parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains what the tool does, what the user should not expect, what the user will receive in return, and when it should be read. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 the schema is empty, so there is no parameter information to add. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the tool's output and non-transactional nature, which is more relevant than parameter semantics for this 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 names a specific verb ('states plainly what submit_enquiry does') and resource ('submit_enquiry on Which Field Software'), and the title reinforces the scope. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tools by being the explanatory precursor to submit_enquiry, not an action or comparison 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?
The opening 'Read first' gives clear contextual guidance that this tool should be consulted before using submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the intended placement relative to the submit action is clear.
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.
The comparison tools are cleanly separated by role: criteria are the dimensions, options are the entities, and the table is the cross-product. The enquiry tools are also distinct: describe explains the process, fields gives the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the action. There is no meaningful overlap between any pair.
The comparison tools follow a consistent compare_ prefix with noun objects, while the enquiry tools are mostly enquiry_ prefixed except for submit_enquiry. This grouping is recognizable but not a single uniform verb_noun pattern across the entire set. The deviation is minor and does not cause confusion.
At six tools, the server is tightly scoped to its two core functions: running a comparison and handling enquiries. Every tool has a distinct purpose and none feel redundant or missing. The count is appropriate for a focused site-specific server.
The comparison surface fully covers the domain: criteria, options, and the full results table. The enquiry surface covers the entire lifecycle from describing the process and field schema to the two-step confirmation submission. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated functionality.