enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Compressed Air Servicing: 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 disclosure burden and meets it well. It explicitly states what the tool returns (who receives the details, consent wording, and confirmation method) and what the described process is not (no purchase, order, payment, or guaranteed quote, and it is free). This gives an agent an accurate expectation for a read-only informational tool.
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 two sentences, begins with a direct imperative, and every clause adds distinct value: subject, process type, key exclusions, and returned content. There is no redundancy or filler.
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, no-annotation informational tool, the description is complete. It covers the purpose, scope, important caveats, and what the tool returns, so an agent can invoke it correctly without further documentation.
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 and 100% schema coverage, so there are no parameters for the description to clarify. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a 4 is appropriate.
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 identifies the tool as an explainer for 'submit_enquiry on Compressed Air Servicing' and specifies that it describes an enquiry with human providers, not a purchase or guaranteed quote. It distinguishes the tool from submit_enquiry by being the descriptive precursor, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from 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 a clear, front-loaded directive telling the agent to use this tool before acting, and the description says it 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does,' making its role as a pre-submission explainer evident. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name enquiry_fields as an alternative, so exclusion guidance is missing.
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 distinct role: enquiry_describe explains the process, enquiry_fields provides the input schema, and submit_enquiry performs the submission. There is slight potential confusion between the two informational tools, but their descriptions clearly separate 'what happens' from 'what fields to use.'
Tool names use a consistent snake_case style, but the structure varies: enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields are noun-first, while submit_enquiry is verb-first. The names remain readable and predictable enough, though the ordering inconsistency is noticeable.
Three tools is well-scoped for a narrow enquiry-submission workflow. Each tool earns its place: process explanation, field schema, and submission with confirmation handling. No redundant or unnecessary tools are present.
The set fully supports the intended workflow: an agent can learn about the process, retrieve the required fields, validate and submit an enquiry, and handle the two-step consent flow. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for this domain.