enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Drivers' Hours Calculator: 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 full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states that this tool returns information about who receives the details, consent wording, and confirmation method, and clarifies that nothing is bought or paid for. This transparently sets expectations for a read-only, informational tool without side effects.
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 concise and well-structured. It opens with 'Read first' to signal priority, then states the purpose, clarifies what it does not do, and lists the returned information. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function and output, with no redundancy.
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 fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. It explains the context of submit_enquiry and specifies the output items (who receives details, consent wording, confirmation method). This is complete for an agent to understand and call the tool appropriately.
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 the schema coverage is 100% (since the schema is empty). The description correctly omits any parameter information, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter 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 states that this tool describes what submit_enquiry does on the Drivers' Hours Calculator, specifying the verb 'states' and the resource. It differentiates from siblings like submit_enquiry by explicitly positioning itself as the descriptive counterpart.
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' gives clear usage context, implying that this tool should be consulted before using submit_enquiry. It also clarifies what the underlying tool does (not a purchase, no guaranteed quote), which helps the agent decide if this is the right tool to understand the process. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like enquiry_fields or calculator_describe, so it relies on implicit context.
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: running the calculator, describing the calculator, explaining the enquiry process, listing enquiry fields, and submitting an enquiry. There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between them.
Names are readable and mostly memorable, but they mix verb-first forms like calculate and submit_enquiry with noun-first forms like calculator_describe and enquiry_describe. The pattern is not fully consistent, though it is still understandable.
Five tools is a lean but well-scoped set for the site's purpose: calculator execution, calculator documentation, enquiry explanation, enquiry schema, and enquiry submission. Each tool earns its place without redundancy.
The tool surface covers the full user journey for both calculator usage and the two-step enquiry submission, including field discovery and consent handling. No obvious gaps or dead ends are visible for the stated domain.