enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Compare My Conveyancing: 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 behavioral burden and largely meets it: it clarifies that the underlying process has no purchase/payment, is free, and has no guaranteed quote, and it says the tool itself 'returns' explanatory content. It does not explicitly state that invoking this tool is side-effect-free, but the descriptive framing makes that 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 front-loaded with the most important usage note ('Read first') and then delivers the key behavioral facts in compact sentences. It repeats some of the title's caveats, but the repetition is minor and does not bloat the text.
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 explainer tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what the tool does, what the user experience will be, and what the return content covers ('who receives the details, the consent wording, and how the person confirms'). Nothing essential is missing 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 is empty with zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to add. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing for the tool to compensate.
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 names the exact resource it explains — submit_enquiry on Compare My Conveyancing — and states the action with a specific verb ('States plainly what... does'). It also distinguishes itself from the transactional sibling by emphasizing that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid.
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' is an explicit directive to use this tool before acting on an enquiry, giving clear context. It does not enumerate sibling alternatives or state when-not-to-use cases, but the prerequisite framing is unambiguous.
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: three expose different views of comparison data, and three support the enquiry submission flow. There is no meaningful overlap between tools, even within the compare_* group, because each returns a different granularity of information.
The compare_* tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern, but the enquiry tools mix conventions: enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields are noun-first, while submit_enquiry is verb-first. All names are readable and snake_case, but the ordering inconsistency prevents a higher score.
Six tools is well-scoped for a comparison-and-enquiry site: three tools cover the comparison content and three cover the enquiry submission flow. Each tool earns its place without unnecessary redundancy or missing essentials.
The tool set covers the full user journey: understanding the comparison, viewing criteria and options, inspecting the full table, learning what the enquiry does, fetching form fields, and submitting with a two-step consent confirmation. There are no obvious dead ends or critical missing operations for this domain.