calculator_describeThe inputs this calculator takes (with units, ranges and defaults), the outputs it returns, and the assumptions and tables behind it.
| 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 transparency burden. It does convey that the tool returns explanatory content about the calculator rather than performing a calculation, but it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or side-effect-free. No contradiction exists.
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 a single, compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary content (inputs) and then efficiently lists outputs, assumptions, and tables, with every phrase contributing 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?
For a zero-parameter documentation tool with no output schema, this description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what information will be returned and leaves no critical gap for correct invocation.
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 has zero properties and 100% schema description coverage, so there are no tool parameters that need clarification. The description's mention of calculator inputs refers to the domain model, not tool arguments, which is acceptable for a zero-parameter describe tool.
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 identifies the resource ('the Car import cost calculator') and the content of the tool's output: inputs with units/ranges/defaults, outputs, assumptions, and tables. This makes the describe-tool purpose clear, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'describes' and relies partly on the tool name and sibling context for 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 description implies that this tool is useful when an agent needs to understand the calculator's inputs, outputs, or assumptions, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to use it versus siblings like calculate. There is no stated when-not-to-use or alternative-selection rule.
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: calculate performs the calculation, calculator_describe documents it, enquiry_describe explains the enquiry flow, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the submission. The two describe tools are separated by subject and are not ambiguous.
Names are readable and consistently lowercase with underscores, but they mix conventions: calculate and submit_enquiry are verb-first, while calculator_describe, enquiry_describe, and enquiry_fields are noun-first metadata names. This is not chaotic, but the word-order inconsistency prevents a higher score.
Five tools is well-scoped for this Car Import Calculator site: one calculation action, one calculator metadata tool, and a two-step enquiry workflow supported by two metadata tools and one submission tool. No tool feels redundant, and the count is comfortably within the ideal range.
The implied domain is a car-import cost calculator with human-provider enquiries. The set covers calculation, calculator documentation, enquiry instructions, field schema, and the full two-step submission/confirmation flow, leaving no obvious dead-end or missing lifecycle step.