enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Abnormal Load Quotes: 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 and does substantial work: it discloses that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, that the enquiry is free, and that the response includes recipient details, consent wording, and confirmation method. It slightly blurs the line between what this tool does and what submit_enquiry does, but overall it is transparent about the non-transactional nature of the process.
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 three sentences, front-loads the imperative 'Read first,' and every sentence contributes meaningful context: what the tool is for, what is not happening, and what the response includes. There is no wasted wording.
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?
For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema descriptive tool, the description is complete: it explains the purpose, the ordering relative to submit_enquiry, the constraints of the enquiry process, and the key content of the returned information. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call this tool 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 schema coverage is effectively 100%, so there is no parameter information for the description to add. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this is satisfactory.
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 clear purpose: it 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does on Abnormal Load Quotes' and returns explanatory content. It distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by describing that action rather than performing it, though it does not explicitly compare itself to the other sibling, enquiry_fields.
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?
'Read first' gives explicit ordering guidance: this tool should be used before submit_enquiry. It provides clear context about the workflow and the fact that the enquiry is free and non-binding, but it does not explicitly describe when not to use it or how it compares with enquiry_fields.
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 separate role: one describes the process, one provides the field schema, and one performs the actual submission. The overlap in content between enquiry_describe and submit_enquiry is intentional and clearly signaled.
All names use snake_case and share the 'enquiry' domain, but the pattern is mixed: enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields are object-first, while submit_enquiry is verb-first. Still readable and predictable enough to navigate.
Three tools is a well-scoped set for a single enquiry submission workflow: orientation, schema, and submission. Each tool earns its place without redundancy.
The core enquiry lifecycle is covered: explain, inspect fields, validate, confirm, and submit. Minor gaps exist around post-submission status tracking or cancelling, but these are not required for the stated purpose.