enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Cold Room 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 does well by stating 'Nothing is bought, ordered or paid; no quote is guaranteed; it is free.' It also discloses the returned content: who receives details, consent wording, and confirmation method. It could be slightly more explicit that this tool itself does not submit an enquiry.
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 compact and front-loaded with the imperative 'Read first.' It is slightly repetitive with the title and could tighten phrasing, but 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?
For a zero-parameter informational tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it explains what the tool does, what it does not do, key caveats, and what information will be returned.
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 the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on behavior and return content rather than inventing parameter documentation that is unnecessary.
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 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does' and explains the outcome of starting an enquiry with human providers. It also differentiates itself from submit_enquiry by being the descriptive pre-read rather than the action itself, and from a purchase or guaranteed quote.
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' explicitly tells the agent to consume this before acting, and the description ties it to submit_enquiry. However, it does not mention enquiry_fields or explain when to prefer this over that sibling, so it lacks full alternative routing.
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: describe explains the process, fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs submission. There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between them.
Tool names are readable but follow mixed conventions: enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields put the noun first, while submit_enquiry uses a verb-first pattern. A consistent verb_noun style such as describe_enquiry, get_enquiry_fields, and submit_enquiry would improve predictability.
Three tools is exactly right for this server's scope: one to explain the submission behavior, one to provide the required field schema, and one to perform the actual submission. Each tool earns its place.
The server covers the full enquiry lifecycle: understanding what happens, retrieving the required fields, and submitting with a two-step confirmation flow. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated purpose.