enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Bin Rules Checker: 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 full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It clearly states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, that the service is free, and it enumerates the content returned, including who receives details, consent wording, and confirmation method. This is thorough for an informational tool.
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 compact and front-loaded with 'Read first', followed by a plain statement of purpose and key clarifications. Every sentence adds meaningful information, and there is minimal redundancy with the title.
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 explanatory tool, the description is complete. It tells the agent why the tool exists, what it explains, what it does not do, and what information it returns. An agent can call this tool appropriately without additional context.
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, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it appropriately focuses on the tool's informational purpose rather than input semantics.
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 role: it 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does' in a specific context, Bin Rules Checker, and explicitly distinguishes it from a purchase or guaranteed quote. This makes its purpose distinct from siblings like submit_enquiry, checker_start, and checker_answer.
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' gives explicit guidance to consult this description before using submit_enquiry. It does not name alternatives or explicitly say when NOT to use it, but the usage context is clear for a no-input explanatory tool.
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.
checker_start/answer/tree are distinguished by entry, traversal, and full-tree access, while enquiry_describe/fields/submit cover explanation, schema, and submission. There is slight conceptual overlap between checker_answer and checker_tree, but the descriptions clearly separate step-by-step navigation from end-to-end reasoning.
Tools are grouped by two prefixes—checker_ and enquiry_—but there is no consistent verb_noun rule: checker_start and checker_answer are verbs while checker_tree is a noun, and enquiry_describe/enquiry_fields mix verb and noun with submit_enquiry reversing the prefix pattern. The names remain readable and groupable, so this is a moderate consistency issue.
Six tools is a well-scoped number for the site's purpose: three support the decision guide and three support the enquiry form/submission flow. No tool feels redundant or missing at the aggregate level.
The decision guide is fully covered with start, answer, and full-tree tools, and the enquiry flow has explanation, field-schema, and a two-step submit/confirm tool. There are no obvious dead ends for the advertised workflows.