enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Confined Space Training 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 provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool 'returns' several pieces of information and conveys that the enquiry process is non-transactional. However, it never explicitly states that this tool itself has no side effects, and it does not describe the output format, leaving a moderate transparency gap.
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, front-loaded with the key directive 'Read first,' and every sentence adds relevant information about the tool's purpose or return content. It avoids redundancy and padded language.
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, the description is largely complete: it explains the tool's purpose, gives a usage cue, and names the return contents. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it does not specify whether the result is plain text or structured data, which is a minor completeness gap.
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 are no parameter semantics for the description to add; the input schema is effectively complete. A baseline of 4 is appropriate because no parameter documentation is needed and the description does not need to compensate for schema gaps.
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 frames the tool as an informational precursor ('Read first') and states it describes what submit_enquiry does, including the key caveats that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid and no quote is guaranteed. It also specifies what the tool returns: who receives the details, the consent wording, and how the person confirms. This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from the 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 instruction 'Read first' provides clear when-to-use guidance: call this before using submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly compare against enquiry_fields or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full usage routing among all siblings.
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 serves a clearly distinct function: one describes the process, one provides field definitions, and one submits the enquiry. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
The names mix patterns: two use an 'enquiry_' prefix (enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields) while one uses a '_enquiry' suffix (submit_enquiry). All are lowercase with underscores, but the inconsistent verb/noun ordering prevents a fully predictable pattern.
With only 3 tools, the server is tightly scoped to its single purpose of submitting an enquiry. Each tool is necessary and there is no bloat, making the count ideal for this narrow domain.
The tool surface fully covers the enquiry lifecycle: understanding the process, retrieving required fields, and submitting with a two-step confirmation. There are no obvious missing operations for the stated purpose.