enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Asbestos Disposal Cost: 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 states that nothing is bought, ordered, paid for, or guaranteed, and that the enquiry is free, plus what information will be returned. It does not explicitly state that this tool itself has no side effects, though that is strongly implied by its describing role and zero parameters.
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 short and front-loaded with 'Read first,' and the key caveats are packed into a few clauses. There is minor redundancy between 'nothing is paid' and 'it is free,' and the sentence structure is slightly run-on, but overall it is efficiently sized.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description compensates by noting that the tool returns who receives the details, the consent wording, and how confirmation happens. It is adequate for an agent deciding whether to call this tool before submit_enquiry, though exact return formatting is left vague.
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 no parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. No parameter documentation is needed; the description instead focuses on behavior and return content, which is appropriate 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 states the tool's job clearly: it 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Asbestos Disposal Cost.' It is specific about starting an enquiry with human providers and, by distinguishing this from the action tool submit_enquiry, it separates the descriptive meta-tool from the sibling that performs the 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 signal to consult this tool before submitting an enquiry, and it references submit_enquiry directly. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or contrast it with enquiry_fields, but the intended placement before submission 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.
Each tool has a completely distinct role: one explains the enquiry process, one provides the field schema, and one submits the enquiry. There is no overlap or plausible confusion between them.
Two tools use an enquiry_ prefix in noun-first style (enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields), while the third uses a verb-first style (submit_enquiry). All names are readable and snake_case-consistent, but the pattern is not uniform.
Three tools is exactly the right scope for this server: a process explainer, a field catalog, and a submission action. Each tool earns its place and there is no bloat.
The tool surface fully covers the enquiry flow: understanding the process, retrieving required fields, and submitting with a mandatory confirmation token. There are no obvious gaps for the stated purpose.