enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on EPC Upgrade 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it is unusually transparent: it states the tool returns an explanation of submit_enquiry, discloses what is not guaranteed or paid, and lists the specific information returned (recipient, consent wording, confirmation method). It also prevents confusion with a purchase by explicit negation.
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 three sentences and every sentence adds value: the 'Read first' instruction, a plain-language definition of the enquiry, and a summary of the returned information. The title repeats the non-purchase framing, reinforcing rather than wasting space.
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 parameterless explanatory tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it defines the tool's purpose, clarifies what it is not, and enumerates the content an agent can expect back. The only possible gap, a pointer to enquiry_fields, is not necessary for correctly invoking this tool.
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 parameter-level documentation is unnecessary; the description focuses on behavior and returned content rather than inputs. The baseline of 4 for a parameterless tool is appropriate, and no input semantics are missing.
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 a plain-language explanation of what submit_enquiry does, with the 'Read first' instruction and title emphasizing it is not the submission action itself. It distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by being descriptive rather than performative, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the enquiry_fields sibling.
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?
'Read first' provides an explicit signal to use this tool before calling submit_enquiry, and the description explains the practical meaning of what an enquiry is (no purchase, no guaranteed quote, free). It gives clear context for when to use it, though it does not state exclusions or when enquiry_fields would be the better choice.
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 three tools have clearly distinct roles: one explains the process and consent, one exposes the field schema, and one performs the two-step submission. An agent can readily determine which tool to call for a given step.
The names all use lowercase snake_case and share the 'enquiry' concept, which keeps them readable and thematically consistent. The only deviation is the word order: 'enquiry_describe' places the verb after the noun while 'submit_enquiry' places it before the noun, so the pattern is mostly consistent rather than perfectly uniform.
Three tools is an appropriate size for this narrow purpose: one onboarding/explanation tool, one schema tool, and one submission tool. Each tool earns its place and none feels redundant.
The tool surface fully covers the enquiry workflow it advertises: learn what happens, get the required fields, and submit with consent and confirmation. There are no obvious missing operations such as update, cancel, or status tracking that this specific lead-submission domain would require.