enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Asbestos Survey 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 behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states the tool returns who receives the details, the consent wording, and how the person confirms, which goes beyond a minimal descriptor. It does not explicitly claim the tool is side-effect-free, but the descriptive framing makes its informational nature clear.
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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the most important guidance ('Read first') and then delivers a concise, well-organized explanation of purpose, exclusions, and return content.
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, low-complexity explainer tool, the description is complete: it states the subject, what is not happening, and what information will be returned. No output schema exists, and the description sufficiently fills that gap.
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 no parameter explanation is required. The baseline of 4 applies; the description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose rather than nonexistent inputs.
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 identifies the tool as an explainer for submit_enquiry, using a specific verb ('States plainly') and naming the exact resource it describes. It also distinguishes the tool from actually performing an enquiry by emphasizing that 'Nothing is bought, ordered or paid; no quote is guaranteed'.
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 phrase 'Read first' gives explicit guidance to consult this tool before taking action, and the description repeatedly contrasts it with submit_enquiry, making the appropriate use case clear. It does not enumerate when to use sibling tools like enquiry_fields, so it stops short of a perfect 5.
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 clearly distinct purpose: one explains the enquiry process, one provides the field schema, and one submits the enquiry. There is no meaningful overlap or risk of selecting the wrong tool for a step.
All names are snake_case and share the 'enquiry' domain, but the pattern is mixed: 'enquiry_describe' and 'enquiry_fields' are noun-first while 'submit_enquiry' is verb-first. It remains readable, but not as consistent as a uniform verb_noun convention.
Three tools are exactly right for this narrow enquiry submission workflow: describe the process, describe the fields, and submit. Each tool earns its place with no redundant or unnecessary surface.
For the stated purpose of submitting asbestos survey quote enquiries, the tool set covers the entire lifecycle: understanding the process, retrieving the schema, and performing the two-step submission. No obvious gap or dead end remains.