enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Duct Cleaning Quotes: 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, that it is free, and what the return content covers. It does not explicitly state that invoking this tool itself has no submission side effects, though 'Read first' strongly implies it.
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 compact, front-loaded with 'Read first,' and every sentence adds meaningful information about purpose, cost, guarantees, and return content. There is no wasted wording.
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 informational tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is complete enough: it explains what the tool does, what it does not do, and what the returned details include. No critical gap remains for an agent to invoke 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, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description adds context about what the returned information contains, which is the relevant semantic content for this 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 identifies the tool as an explainer of what submit_enquiry does, with specific scope: it starts an enquiry, is free, and is not a purchase or guaranteed quote. It is not a tautology and adds useful distinctions, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from enquiry_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' is explicit guidance to use this tool before acting, and the description names submit_enquiry as the behavior it explains. However, it does not explicitly address when not to use it or compare it with enquiry_fields beyond the general framing.
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 clear, distinct role: enquiry_describe explains the submission process, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry acts on submission. The descriptions are explicit enough that an agent should not confuse them.
All names are snake_case and enquiry-themed, but the pattern is mixed: enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields are noun-first, while submit_enquiry is verb-first. This is readable but not a consistent verb_noun convention.
Three tools is well-scoped for a single enquiry submission workflow: one for process orientation, one for field requirements, and one for the actual submission. Each tool earns its place.
The tools cover the full enquiry flow: understanding the process, retrieving field requirements, and submitting with the two-step confirmation. No update or delete operations are needed for this domain.