enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Basement Excavation 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 provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does well by stating that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, no quote is guaranteed, it is free, and it returns who receives details, consent wording, and confirmation method. It could be more explicit about this tool itself being read-only, but the 'Read first' framing strongly implies it only provides information.
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 tight and front-loaded with 'Read first,' immediately signaling priority. Every sentence contributes useful information about the enquiry flow, the return content, or the caveats, with 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?
For a zero-parameter informational tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what submit_enquiry does, the key disclaimers, and what the return will convey. It is sufficient for an agent to decide to call it and understand the response, though a bit more structure about the returned fields could make it fully complete.
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 input schema is empty with zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter descriptions needed, and the description appropriately focuses on what the tool communicates rather than on parameters.
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 the tool's job: it 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does' and returns explanatory information about the enquiry process. It names the specific resource (Basement Excavation Cost) and the related action tool (submit_enquiry), making the purpose identifiable. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling enquiry_fields, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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 usage instruction, telling the agent to consult this tool before proceeding with submit_enquiry. It names the related action tool and clarifies what the enquiry entails, but it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention the enquiry_fields sibling.
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 role: enquiry_describe explains the process, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the submission. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Two tools share the enquiry_ prefix, but submit_enquiry inverts the pattern. The names are still clear and obviously related, so this is only a minor consistency deviation.
Three tools are well-scoped for a single enquiry workflow, each serving a necessary and distinct purpose. The set feels appropriately minimal without being thin.
The set covers the full enquiry flow: explaining the process, defining the fields, and handling two-step consent-based submission. There are no obvious missing operations for the stated purpose.