enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Cataract Surgery 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 full behavioral burden and mostly succeeds: it states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, no quote is guaranteed, and the tool is free. It also discloses what the tool returns, making its side-effect-free nature reasonably clear.
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 short and front-loaded with the 'Read first' instruction, and each sentence adds meaningful context about purpose, behavior, or output. There is minor redundancy with the title about not being a purchase or guaranteed quote, but it reinforces an important caveat.
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 parameterless, read-only explainer tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what it does not guarantee, and what it returns: recipients, consent wording, and confirmation method. This is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it and what to expect.
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 parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; per the rubric this gets a solid baseline. The description instead explains the tool's output, which is the only semantic information an agent needs here.
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 that this tool 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does' and lists the returned content, so the tool's role as a read-first explainer is evident. It distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by being descriptive rather than action-oriented, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with enquiry_fields.
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' is an explicit cue that this tool should be called before submit_enquiry, framing it as the safe entry point. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it with enquiry_fields, but the usage context is otherwise clear.
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.
enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields, and submit_enquiry each occupy a clearly distinct role: narrative overview, field schema, and actual submission. There is no meaningful overlap between any pair, though describe and fields both support the same submission flow.
The first two tools share an enquiry_ prefix and clearly group metadata/introspection, while submit_enquiry is the action verb. This is mostly consistent and readable, but the object-first vs verb-first ordering is a minor deviation from a single verb_noun pattern.
Three tools is well-scoped for a single-purpose enquiry submission server: each tool maps to a necessary stage (understand, get fields, submit). No tool feels redundant and the count is not too thin.
For the stated purpose of submitting a Cataract Surgery Cost enquiry, the set fully covers onboarding description, required field metadata, validation/consent, and two-step submission with confirmation token. No essential operation is missing; the flow cannot get stuck within this server's responsibility.