enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Cyber Essentials 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, the description carries the disclosure burden. It states that the underlying process is free, involves no purchase/order/payment, and guarantees no quote – key behavioral guarantees for an agent. It also reveals what the tool returns (recipients, consent wording, confirmation method), though it does not mention auth, rate limits, or side effects of the tool itself.
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 about 70 words and front-loads the instruction 'Read first.' It is slightly redundant with the title (both mention 'not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote'), but every sentence adds some content about behavior or return value.
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?
Given a 0-param tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (recipient details, consent wording, confirmation) and clarifies the non-transactional nature. It does not detail output format or mention sibling enquiry_fields, but for a simple informational tool this is sufficient.
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 the baseline is 4. The description adds relevant context about the output even though there is nothing to say about parameter semantics.
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 states the tool's function: it 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does' and explains the enquiry outcome (human providers, no purchase, free). It explicitly differentiates from the sibling submit_enquiry by describing rather than performing the action, and the title reinforces the boundary ('not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote'). The verb 'describe' is implied by the name and the explanatory language.
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 when-to-use instruction, positioning this tool as the prerequisite before submit_enquiry. It does not mention when to use enquiry_fields or explicitly exclude other tools, so it stops short of full alternative routing.
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 role: enquiry_describe explains the process, enquiry_fields provides the input schema, and submit_enquiry performs the submission. An agent can easily select the right tool for the job without confusion.
Tool names are readable and mostly follow a noun_verb or verb_noun pattern, with enquiry_ prefix on two tools and submit_enquiry using the reverse order. This is a minor inconsistency that does not harm usability.
Three tools is exactly right for this narrow server purpose: describing the process, exposing the schema, and submitting the enquiry. No redundant tools exist.
The tool surface fully covers the enquiry lifecycle for this server, including context, field discovery, validation, consent, and two-step submission. There are no obvious missing operations for the stated purpose.