enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Energy Audit Cost: 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 burden. It implies a read-only informational role ('states', 'returns') and details what the output contains, but it does not explicitly declare that the tool has no side effects, does not require permissions, or is non-mutating. For a describe tool, the read-only nature is implicit but not stated outright.
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 'Read first' and covers the essential points in a few sentences. It is slightly verbose with redundant phrasing ('Nothing is bought, ordered or paid; no quote is guaranteed; it is free') but remains efficient and well-structured for its purpose.
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 the tool has no input schema, no output schema, and is a simple describe operation, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and how it relates to submit_enquiry. It does not mention error conditions, but for an informational tool this is not a critical gap.
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 baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters and does not add anything beyond that, which is appropriate for a parameterless 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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: it 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does' on Energy Audit Cost. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being a read-first informational tool, not the submission tool itself, and it enumerates the key points (free, no purchase, no guaranteed quote) that clarify its scope.
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 description begins with 'Read first,' which clearly implies this should be used before calling submit_enquiry. It also clarifies what the tool is not (not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to enquiry_fields. The usage guidance is strong but not fully explicit about alternatives.
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: describe explains the process, fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry handles submission. There is no overlap in purpose or confusion about which tool to call.
All names use lowercase snake_case and share the 'enquiry' prefix, making them easy to group. Minor inconsistency exists because enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields are noun-first while submit_enquiry is verb-first, but this remains readable and predictable.
Three tools are exactly right for this narrow domain: one for orientation, one for input schema, and one for the actual submission. Each tool earns its place and there is no bloat.
The tool set fully covers the enquiry workflow: understanding the process, retrieving the fields, validating and submitting with consent, and handling the confirmation step. No obvious lifecycle gap exists for the stated purpose.