enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Drone Licence 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 fully carries the burden of disclosure, and it does so well: it states that nothing is bought or paid for, no quote is guaranteed, the service is free, and it details what information is returned including recipient, consent wording, and confirmation method.
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 short, front-loaded with the 'Read first' directive, and every sentence adds meaningful information. It avoids filler while covering purpose, exclusions, cost, and return content in just three sentences.
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 no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns: who receives the details, consent wording, and how confirmation happens. It fully covers expectations for this simple zero-parameter tool, leaving no significant gap for an agent to call it correctly.
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 description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The description adds useful context about the returned content, which is appropriate for a parameterless informational tool.
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, explicitly differentiating it from a purchase, order, payment, or guaranteed quote. It names the related submit_enquiry tool and positions itself as the read-first informational counterpart, making its purpose unmistakable.
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' provides an explicit usage signal that this tool should be consulted before engaging with the enquiry process. It sets expectations about what the enquiry is and is not, though it does not discuss alternatives like the checker_* tools or specify when to skip this tool.
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: checker_start and checker_answer drive the step-by-step guide, checker_tree provides the full tree for offline reasoning, and enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields, and submit_enquiry form a clear documentation-plus-submission flow. There is no real overlap that would cause an agent to misselect.
The naming is mostly predictable with checker_* and enquiry_* prefixes grouping related tools. submit_enquiry breaks the prefix pattern by using verb-first order, but all names are readable snake_case and the semantic grouping is clear.
Six tools is well-scoped for this server: three support the Drone licence checker decision guide and three support the enquiry submission flow. Each tool earns its place and the count is not excessive.
The decision guide has start, per-step answering, and full-tree access, covering both interactive use and end-to-end reasoning. The enquiry flow covers explanation, field schema, and the two-step consent-based submission, so there are no obvious dead ends or missing operations.