enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Bank Convert: 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 full burden. It discloses that the tool is descriptive, returns recipient/consent/confirmation details, and that the described process is free and non-binding. It stops short of explicitly stating the tool itself performs no action, but 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does' strongly implies read-only behavior.
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 short sentences front-load the purpose ('Read first') and pack only essential facts: what submit_enquiry does, what it does not do, and what the tool returns. No filler or repetition.
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?
The description explains the tool's output even without an output schema, listing returned content. It also preempts common misconceptions (not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote). A small gap is the lack of any pointer to sibling tools like enquiry_fields, but this is minor given the simplicity.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed; the empty schema fully covers the input contract.
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 and resource: it 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Bank Convert' and also 'returns who receives the details, the consent wording, and how the person confirms.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling comparison tools and the actual submit_enquiry action.
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' is an explicit instruction to consume this tool before acting, implying it is a prerequisite to submit_enquiry. It also clarifies that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid and that no quote is guaranteed, signaling this is the informational counterpart, though it doesn't explicitly contrast all sibling tools.
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 compare_* tools separate criteria, option metadata, and the full option-by-criterion table, so an agent can choose the right level of detail. The enquiry_* tools are also distinct: describe explains the process, fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the submission. There is slight potential overlap because compare_table contains the data that the other two compare tools also expose, but the descriptions make the boundaries clear enough.
All tool names use lowercase snake_case and the compare_* and enquiry_* prefixes provide some structure. However, the pattern is mixed: compare_criteria, compare_options, and compare_table are verb-first, while enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields are noun-first, and submit_enquiry is verb-first again. The names are readable but do not follow one predictable convention.
Six tools is a well-scoped size for this server. Each tool serves a clear purpose within the comparison and enquiry workflows, and there is no sense of bloat or thinness.
The comparison surface is complete: criteria, option metadata, and the full comparison table are all available. The enquiry workflow is also complete, covering the process description, field schema, and a two-step consent-based submission with confirmation token.