enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Catchment 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 provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses that the action is free, does not create a purchase or payment, does not guarantee a quote, and returns who receives the details, the consent wording, and how the person confirms.
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 'Read first' and every following sentence adds a distinct, useful fact: what the tool explains, what it does not do, that it is free, and what it returns. It is appropriately sized for an explanatory tool.
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 informational tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, exclusions, and return content. It does not describe the exact response format, but for a free-text explainer this is a minor gap rather than a completeness failure.
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 is empty with zero parameters, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description correctly focuses on what the tool returns rather than on parameters, which do not exist.
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 states a clear informational purpose: it explains what submit_enquiry does, and the title reinforces that it is about starting an enquiry, not purchasing or receiving a guaranteed quote. It also distinguishes itself from the transactional sibling submit_enquiry by describing rather than performing the action.
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 directive to use this tool before acting, and the description clarifies expectations around submit_enquiry. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative such as 'use submit_enquiry when you are ready to submit the enquiry,' so the routing guidance is strong but not fully explicit.
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 role: the checker_* tools handle guide traversal and full-tree reasoning, while enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields, and submit_enquiry separate documentation, metadata, and submission. There is no meaningful overlap that would cause an agent to pick the wrong tool.
The checker_* and enquiry_* prefixes help group the two workflows, but the pattern is not consistent: submit_enquiry breaks the enquiry_ prefix, and verb/noun ordering varies across tools like checker_start and submit_enquiry. The names are still readable and understandable.
Six tools is well-scoped for this server: three cover the decision guide lifecycle and three cover the enquiry submission workflow. Each tool earns its place with no obvious redundancy.
The set fully covers the interactive decision guide from start to verdict and the two-step enquiry submission with consent and confirmation. It also provides field metadata and a plain-language explainer, so no critical workflow step is missing.