enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on CQC Registration Checker: 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. It discloses the tool's read-only character through 'States' and 'returns', and details what a caller will learn: recipients, consent wording, and confirmation method. It does not explicitly rule out side effects, but the language strongly implies an 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 short sentences with the imperative 'Read first' front-loaded. Every clause adds useful information: what the tool does, what it is not, and what it returns. No 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 helper, the description is complete: it states the tool's purpose, when to use it, and the contents of its return value. An agent can invoke it without additional context.
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 schema coverage is vacuous at 100%. There is nothing for the description to explain about inputs, so the baseline 4 for no-parameter tools applies.
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 states a specific action—'States plainly what submit_enquiry does'—and gives concrete scope: an enquiry with human providers, no purchase, no guaranteed quote, free. It clearly separates this meta/description tool from the actual submit_enquiry sibling, though it does not explicitly name that sibling.
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 a direct usage signal telling the agent to consult this tool before proceeding with an enquiry. It explains what the tool returns, so an agent can decide it is the right overview step, but it does not give explicit when-not-to-use or alternative-routing guidance.
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: checker_start initializes the flow, checker_answer advances it, checker_tree provides the full decision guide, while enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields explain the form in two complementary ways and submit_enquiry handles submission. There is no meaningful overlap that would cause an agent to select the wrong tool.
The checker_* and enquiry_* prefixes impose some structure, and all names are lowercase snake_case. However, submit_enquiry breaks the prefix convention and enquiry_describe reverses the typical verb-object order, making the naming pattern less predictable than it could be.
Six tools is a well-scoped count for the server's purpose. Each tool maps to a necessary step in either the decision-guide workflow or the enquiry submission workflow, without superfluous additions.
The decision guide is fully covered with start, answer, and full-tree tools, while the enquiry workflow is covered end-to-end from description and fields through consent-based submission. There are no obvious missing operations that would block an agent from completing either workflow.