enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Caravan Storage Prices: 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 transparency burden. It discloses the tool's output content (recipients, consent wording, confirmation method) and clearly states the non-transactional nature of the enquiry. It does not explicitly claim read-only, but 'Read first' and 'returns' strongly imply an informational, side-effect-free 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 opens with a direct instruction, front-loads the purpose, and adds only relevant facts about the enquiry flow and return content. It is compact and every sentence contributes useful information.
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?
Given that the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description appropriately explains both what the tool communicates and what it returns. For a simple 0-parameter describe tool, nothing essential is missing.
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 an empty input schema, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation burden exists.
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 uses a specific verb ('States plainly') and names the exact object ('what submit_enquiry does'), so an agent knows this is an explanatory read tool rather than the action itself. It also distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by clarifying that no purchase or payment occurs.
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?
'Read first' explicitly tells the agent to consult this tool before submitting an enquiry, giving clear placement in the workflow. It provides deciding context—free, no commitment, no guaranteed quote—and names submit_enquiry as the related action, though it does not directly contrast with enquiry_fields.
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 separate role: one explains the overall purpose, one describes the input schema, and one submits the enquiry. There is no meaningful overlap between them.
All names are snake_case and clearly domain-related, but the pattern is mixed: 'enquiry_describe' and 'enquiry_fields' are noun-first, while 'submit_enquiry' is verb-noun. This is readable but not a fully consistent convention.
Three tools is well-scoped for a single enquiry-submission flow: orientation, schema discovery, and submission. Each tool earns its place.
The surface covers the full lifecycle of what is advertised: reading about the process, retrieving all editable fields, validating, and submitting with explicit consent. No obvious dead-end or missing operation exists.