enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Employment Rights 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose outcome-relevant traits: nothing is bought, ordered or paid; no quote is guaranteed; it is free; and it returns who receives details, the consent wording, and confirmation flow. The 'States plainly' phrasing implies a pure read/documentation tool, though it never explicitly states that the tool itself performs no submission.
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 front-loaded with a strong 'Read first' and consists of three sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose, non-transactional nature, and return content. There is minor redundancy with the title ('not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote' vs. 'Nothing is bought, ordered or paid; no quote is guaranteed'), but no wasted sentences overall.
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 output schema, the description is complete: it states the tool's role relative to submit_enquiry, clarifies common misconceptions, and lists what the returned content covers. An agent has everything it needs to invoke this tool correctly and understand what it will get back.
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 shows an empty properties object, so there is nothing for the description to explain. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this receives a 4; no additional parameter semantics are needed.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: it 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does', positioning this tool as the informational companion to the submission tool. The title reinforces this with 'What you get: an ENQUIRY with a human', and the description clearly marks it as distinct from submit_enquiry and the other checker siblings.
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 directive 'Read first' gives an explicit ordering cue: this tool should be consulted before submit_enquiry. The description also clarifies the non-purchase, non-guaranteed-quote nature of the enquiry, which helps an agent decide when to surface this information. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or saying 'use this instead of X', but the context is clear enough.
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.
The tools split cleanly into two groups: the checker guide tools (start, answer, tree) and the enquiry tools (describe, fields, submit). Within each group, every tool has a distinct purpose with no meaningful overlap.
All names are lowercase snake_case and use domain prefixes like checker_ and enquiry_, which helps. However, the relationship between prefix and action varies: checker_start and checker_tree are noun-like, enquiry_describe is object-verb, and submit_enquiry is verb-object, so the pattern is not fully consistent.
Six tools is well-scoped for this server: three support navigating the decision guide and three support the enquiry submission flow. Each tool earns its place without redundancy or bloat.
The surface covers the full user journey: start the guide, answer questions, inspect the whole tree, understand the enquiry process, see required fields, and submit with two-step confirmation. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated domain.