enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Campervan Conversion 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?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose what the output contains ('who receives the details, the consent wording, and how the person confirms') and clarifies the outcome is free with no purchase or guaranteed quote. However, it never explicitly states the tool itself is read-only or non-mutating, and some clauses describe submit_enquiry's behavior rather than enquiry_describe's, leaving slight ambiguity about side effects.
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 front-loaded with the key instruction ('Read first') and purpose, then adds useful output details in three sentences. Minor deduction because the title and description both repeat 'not a purchase / not a guaranteed quote', and the specific page name 'Campervan Conversion Cost' adds limited invocation value.
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?
With no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool returns and frames it as a pre-submission explanation of submit_enquiry. It is slightly incomplete about the exact output format and the relationship to enquiry_fields, but for a zero-parameter informational tool, the description is largely 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 tool has zero parameters and the schema already reflects that, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The baseline of 4 for a no-parameter tool applies; the description adds no parameter-specific meaning because none is needed.
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 names a specific verb and resource: it 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does', which clearly positions enquiry_describe as an informational tool rather than the action tool. It also references sibling submit_enquiry, helping an agent distinguish them. However, the title 'What you get: an ENQUIRY with a human' could be misread as the tool itself creating an enquiry, and the description never explicitly says 'this tool does not submit'.
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 a clear usage signal that this tool should be used before submit_enquiry, and naming submit_enquiry as the subject being described gives the agent an obvious alternative. It does not discuss the other sibling, enquiry_fields, nor give explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 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: enquiry_describe provides narrative instructions, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the submission. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Two tools share the enquiry_ prefix and a clear noun-based convention, but submit_enquiry reverses the pattern to verb_noun. This is a minor deviation and the names remain predictable.
Three tools is exactly right for this narrow enquiry flow: one to explain, one to describe fields, and one to submit. There is no bloat or missing middle layer.
The full lifecycle is covered: read about the process, fetch field definitions, submit with consent and confirmation. For a simple enquiry submission, there are no obvious gaps.