enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on CCTV Installation 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, the description carries the full burden and meets it well. It explicitly states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, that the enquiry is free, and that the tool returns who receives details, consent wording, and confirmation method. This gives a clear and honest picture of the tool's behavior and consequences.
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, front-loaded with the most important instruction ('Read first'), and every sentence adds substantive value. It avoids filler while covering the core behavioral guarantees and return content.
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, no-output-schema informational tool, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, the context in which it should be read, the key caveats (free, no purchase, no guaranteed quote), and what information the returned description will contain.
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, so there is nothing to document beyond the empty schema. The description appropriately focuses on the output content instead, which is the relevant semantic information for this informational 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it describes what submit_enquiry does for CCTV Installation Cost, including that it starts an enquiry with human providers who quote directly. It also lists what the description returns, so an agent can confidently distinguish this informational tool from the action-oriented sibling submit_enquiry.
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' gives an explicit cue that this tool should be consulted before acting, and the description clarifies that it explains submit_enquiry. It doesn't explicitly contrast with enquiry_fields, but the use case is clear enough for an agent to know when to call this tool.
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: enquiry_describe explains the process, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the actual submission. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
All names are snake_case and clearly reference the enquiry domain, but the pattern is slightly mixed: enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields put the noun first, while submit_enquiry puts the verb first. The names remain readable and predictable enough, but the ordering is not fully consistent.
Three tools is exactly right for this simple enquiry workflow: one for orientation, one for field definitions, and one for submission. Each tool earns its place and the server is well-scoped.
The tool set fully covers the enquiry lifecycle: understanding the process, retrieving the required fields, and submitting with confirmation. There are no obvious dead ends for an agent guiding a user through the enquiry flow.