enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Concrete Pumping Hire: 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 succeeds: it discloses that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid for, that quotes are not guaranteed, that it is free, and what the tool returns. It also reveals the consequence of the enquiry flow (human providers quote directly).
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 sentence earns its place: purpose, key caveats, and return content. It is slightly dense but appropriately sized for a zero-parameter 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?
Because there is no output schema, the description correctly explains the return value: who receives the details, the consent wording, and how confirmation happens. Combined with the explicit caveats and free nature, an agent has enough context to invoke and interpret this tool correctly.
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 the schema documents that completely, so the 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter semantics because none are needed.
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 opens with 'Read first' and states plainly that this tool describes what submit_enquiry does, making its meta-purpose explicit. It names the exact resource (submit_enquiry on Concrete Pumping Hire) and differentiates the describe action from the submission 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?
The instruction 'Read first' signals the intended use as a precursor to submit_enquiry, and the caveats clarify when an enquiry is appropriate. It does not explicitly delimit against the sibling enquiry_fields, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know this is the orientation/explanation 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 clear, non-overlapping role: describe the enquiry flow, expose the field schema, and submit with required confirmation. No two tools could plausibly be selected for the same task.
All names are readable snake_case, but the pattern is mixed: two tools start with the noun prefix 'enquiry_' while the third uses verb-first 'submit_enquiry', and 'enquiry_fields' is a noun phrase rather than a verb_noun action.
Three tools cover the narrow enquiry-submission process exactly: context, schema, and submission. Each tool earns its place without redundancy.
The tool surface fully supports the intended flow: intro, field discovery, and two-step consent-confirm submission. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated purpose.