enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Employer Cost 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, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it explicitly states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, and that it is free. It also discloses what the return contains (who receives details, consent wording, confirmation method). It stops short of stating the tool itself is read-only, but 'Read first' and the descriptive tone imply an informational, side-effect-free operation.
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 and front-loaded: 'Read first' immediately signals priority, followed by a clear explanation, key caveats, and output details. Every sentence earns its place without 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 zero-parameter describe tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the tool's purpose, key behavioral constraints (free, no purchase, no guarantee), and what the returned description includes, leaving no critical gap for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description appropriately omits parameter details and focuses on behavior and output, matching the baseline for zero-parameter tools.
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 opens with 'Read first' and 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Employer Cost Calculator' – a specific verb (states) and resource (submit_enquiry). It clearly differentiates itself from submit_enquiry, which actually initiates the enquiry, and lists the content of the returned explanation, making its function 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?
The phrase 'Read first' explicitly directs the agent to use this tool before submit_enquiry, establishing it as a prerequisite. It doesn't name or contrast with siblings like calculator_describe or enquiry_fields, but the focus on submit_enquiry makes the intended use case clear.
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.