enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Development Exit Finance: 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 it delivers: it discloses that no purchase/order/payment occurs, that no quote is guaranteed, that the service is free, and that the tool returns consent wording and confirmation details. This gives a clear behavioral profile for 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 front-loaded with 'Read first' and uses three focused sentences. There is minor redundancy with the title's 'not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote', but each sentence adds meaningful content.
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 descriptive tool, the description is complete: it explains the purpose, boundaries, costs, and return content. An agent knows what to expect and can decide whether to invoke it before submit_enquiry.
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 the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds useful context about what the tool returns and the nature of the enquiry, but no parameter-level explanation is 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 states a specific verb-resource pair: it 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does' and explains the enquiry flow with human providers. It clearly distinguishes this informational tool from the action-oriented sibling submit_enquiry by emphasizing that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid.
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 an explicit usage cue telling agents to consult this before acting on submit_enquiry. It also clarifies what the tool is not for by excluding purchase/quote guarantees, though it does not explicitly mention enquiry_fields as an alternative.
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 schema, and submit_enquiry performs the actual submission. There is no meaningful overlap or risk of selecting the wrong tool for a given step.
All names are lowercase snake_case and share the 'enquiry' domain prefix, but the pattern is not perfectly uniform: enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields are noun-first while submit_enquiry is verb-first. This is a minor deviation and the intent remains clear.
Three tools is exactly right for this tightly scoped enquiry submission flow. Each tool earns its place: one to orient, one to define the fields, and one to submit.
The tool surface fully covers the enquiry lifecycle described: understanding the process, retrieving the required fields, and submitting with the two-step confirmation flow. There are no obvious gaps for the stated purpose.