enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on The Water Hub: 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, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It makes the output explicit: an enquiry with human providers, nothing bought or paid, no guaranteed quote, and returns about recipient details, consent wording, and confirmation method. For a pure describe tool this is transparent and 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?
The description is front-loaded with 'Read first' and every sentence adds relevant information about scope, cost, guarantees, and return content. It is a bit dense but appropriately sized for a no-input tool that needs to set expectations.
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 no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: the tool's purpose, the key facts about The Water Hub enquiry flow, and what information it returns. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.
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 schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to explain parameter meaning. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless 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 clearly states that this tool is an explainer: it 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does on The Water Hub.' It distinguishes itself from the action tool submit_enquiry and from sibling tools by specifying the covered content: human providers, direct quoting, no purchase/payment, no guaranteed quote, and the return details.
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 imperative 'Read first' gives explicit usage direction: this should be consulted before using submit_enquiry. It does not name alternative tools or exclusions, but for a zero-input description tool the 'read first' instruction is sufficient context.
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 targets a distinct operation on the dataset or enquiry. dataset_search, dataset_row, dataset_compare, and dataset_top have clear differences in matching logic and output. Enquiry tools are clearly separate. No two tools appear to do the same thing.
All dataset tools follow a dataset_* pattern, and enquiry tools follow enquiry_* except submit_enquiry which inverts the order. This is a minor deviation but the overall naming is predictable and clear.
10 tools is well-scoped for the domain, covering both data querying and enquiry submission without bloat.
The dataset query surface covers schema, metadata, row lookup, search, stats, and top/bottom. Enquiry covers description, fields, and submission. Minor gaps like a 'list all rows' or enquiry status check exist but are not critical.