Reply to a buyer enquiry on the authenticated user's listing. Requires OAuth scope enquiries:respond. Example: 'reply to that enquiry — say it's still available, collection only'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| answer | Yes | Reply text (1-2000 chars). | |
| enquiryId | Yes |
| 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?
Annotations already declare the operation as non-read-only and destructive. The description adds the OAuth requirement and a concrete example, but does not explain side effects or irreversibility beyond what annotations imply.
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?
Two concise sentences: purpose, auth requirement, and example. Information is front-loaded with no 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?
With only two parameters, an output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description provides enough context to call the tool correctly. It could mention destructive effects explicitly, but this is largely covered by annotations.
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 schema describes 'answer' but leaves 'enquiryId' undocumented. The description's example clarifies the intended answer style, but it adds little formal meaning beyond the schema; enquiryId is inferable from the name.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Reply to a buyer enquiry on the authenticated user's listing.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as make_enquiry or get_my_enquiries.
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?
Provides clear context: this tool is for responding to an existing buyer enquiry, and it names the required OAuth scope. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
