enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Fire Compliance 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 delivers: it discloses that no purchase, order, payment, or guaranteed quote occurs, that the service is free, and that the tool returns who receives the details, the consent wording, and the confirmation method. This goes well beyond a minimal statement of purpose.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the urgent 'Read first', and every clause adds meaningful information about behavior, outcomes, and return contents. There is no filler or repetition.
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 informational tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains why to use it (read first), what it covers (submit_enquiry behavior, costs, guarantees, consent, confirmation), and what it returns. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly and understand the result.
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?
There are zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain parameter meaning, and it does not waste space doing so.
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 this tool explains what submit_enquiry does on Fire Compliance Cost, using a specific verb ('states') and resource ('what submit_enquiry does'), and it lists what it returns. It effectively distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by being the read-first description layer. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the other sibling enquiry_fields, so it is not quite a 5.
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' is an explicit directive that tells the agent to use this tool before calling submit_enquiry, and the description explains the task context: starting an enquiry with human providers. It does not name exclusion conditions or the alternative enquiry_fields, but the intended sequencing is 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 has a clearly distinct role: enquiry_describe provides the narrative overview, enquiry_fields gives the exact schema, and submit_enquiry performs the actual submission. There is no meaningful overlap that would cause an agent to select the wrong tool.
All tool names are lowercase snake_case and clearly revolve around 'enquiry', which keeps them readable. The minor inconsistency is that two tools use a noun-first pattern while submit_enquiry uses verb-noun, but this does not create real confusion.
Three tools is exactly the right scope for this server's single-purpose enquiry workflow. There is no bloat, and each tool earns its place in the flow.
The server fully covers its apparent domain: explaining the process, exposing the required fields, and handling the two-step acknowledged submission flow. No obvious lifecycle gap exists for the stated purpose of submitting a fire compliance cost enquiry.