calculator_describeThe inputs this calculator takes (with units, ranges and defaults), the outputs it returns, and the assumptions and tables behind it.
| 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 explaining behavior. It does disclose that the tool returns information about inputs, outputs, assumptions, and tables. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only, informational tool and does not actually run a calculation, which the sibling `calculate` would do.
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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the key information: inputs, outputs, and underlying assumptions/tables. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler.
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, low-complexity describe tool, the description is largely sufficient. It names the main content areas an agent should expect, though it does not mention the output format or explain how this tool relates to `calculate`. These are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.
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 schema cannot provide parameter-level detail; the baseline is therefore 4. The description still adds value by explaining that the returned content includes units, ranges, defaults, and assumptions, which helps set expectations for the output.
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 the tool describes the calculator's inputs, outputs, assumptions, and supporting tables. This distinguishes it from the sibling `calculate` tool, which presumably performs calculations. The title is slightly ambiguous, but the description resolves the intent.
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 usage context is implied: an agent would use this when it needs to understand the calculator's parameters, defaults, or assumptions before calculating. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool instead of `calculate` or `enquiry_describe`, and no exclusions are stated.
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 targets a clearly different concern: running the calculation, describing the calculator, explaining the enquiry flow, providing the enquiry schema, and submitting the enquiry. There is no meaningful overlap, and the descriptions make the boundaries obvious.
Naming is inconsistent: calculate is a bare verb, calculator_describe and enquiry_describe use object-verb order, submit_enquiry uses verb-object order, and enquiry_fields is a noun-noun. The grouping around calculator/enquiry helps, but the verb placement is not predictable across the set.
Five tools is well-scoped for a two-purpose site covering calculator operation/documentation and enquiry schema/submission. Each tool has a distinct job and none feels redundant.
The domain is fully covered: users can learn about the calculator, run it, learn about the enquiry process, see the required fields, and submit with two-step consent. There are no obvious dead ends for the stated purpose.