enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Drain Prices: 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 full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior: it returns who receives details, consent wording, and confirmation method. It implies read-only behavior through 'Read first' and the focus on explanation, but does not explicitly state side effects or limitations. Since it's a description tool, this is sufficient.
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 sentences, starting with the imperative 'Read first,' which front-loads the usage instruction. The second sentence elaborates concisely on what the tool returns. It's appropriately sized for a simple describe tool, though it could be tightened.
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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides all essential information: what the tool does and what it returns. It covers the key aspects of submit_enquiry that an agent needs to understand before using it. There are no gaps that would prevent correct invocation.
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 doesn't need to explain parameters, and it doesn't. The schema coverage is 100% (empty schema), so no information is missing.
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 purpose: to describe what submit_enquiry does, with specific details about its behavior (no purchase, no guaranteed quote, free). It distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry (which performs the action) and implies a different role from enquiry_fields by focusing on explanation rather than fields.
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' explicitly instructs to use this before submit_enquiry. It doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context of 'what submit_enquiry does' makes it clear this is for understanding, not for performing the enquiry. It could be improved by explicitly stating when to use it instead of the other tools, but the guidance is adequate.
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.
enquiry_describe explains what the service does, enquiry_fields provides the input schema, and submit_enquiry performs the actual submission. Each tool targets a clearly distinct aspect of the workflow, so an agent can select the correct one without ambiguity.
All three tools share the 'enquiry' root, making the domain immediately clear. The arrangement differs slightly, with submit_enquiry using verb-first order while enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields lead with the noun, but the pattern remains readable and predictable.
Three tools map cleanly onto a single narrow workflow: understand the service, inspect the fields, and submit the enquiry. Each tool earns its place, and the count is well-scoped for the server's stated purpose.
The surface covers the full path for the core action: describing the process, retrieving required field definitions, and submitting with a two-step confirmation. Purchasing and quoting are intentionally out of scope, so no essential operation is missing.