enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Fire Risk Quotes: 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. It openly discloses the key behavioral boundaries of the workflow it describes: 'Nothing is bought, ordered or paid; no quote is guaranteed; it is free.' It also discloses the return contents: who receives the details, the consent wording, and how the person confirms. This makes the tool's informational, non-side-effecting nature clear.
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 earns its place: the 'Read first' instruction, the plain statement of what submit_enquiry does, the negations that prevent misuse, and the return summary. It is front-loaded and free of filler.
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, no-output-schema informational tool, this description is complete. It gives the tool's purpose, the scope of the underlying operation, the cost/commitment boundaries, and what the tool returns. An agent has enough to use it correctly and avoid confusing it with submit_enquiry.
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 coverage is effectively 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately does not waste space inventing parameter documentation.
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 the tool's purpose: it 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Fire Risk Quotes' and clarifies that it is a descriptive pre-read rather than the submission action itself. It also distinguishes itself by naming the exact tool it explains (submit_enquiry) and listing what it returns, so an agent can tell it apart from submit_enquiry and enquiry_fields.
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' gives an explicit, front-loaded usage instruction: consult this tool before using submit_enquiry. The description also provides helpful context about what the underlying flow does and does not do. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the 'Read first' cue is clear enough for the intended pre-read role.
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: one explains the workflow, one provides the field schema, and one handles the actual submission. There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between them.
All names use snake_case, but the pattern is mixed: 'enquiry_describe' and 'enquiry_fields' lead with the noun, while 'submit_enquiry' leads with the verb. Still readable, but not a consistent verb_noun convention.
Three tools is well-scoped for a single-purpose enquiry workflow. Each tool earns its place and the set is neither bloated nor too thin.
The workflow is fully covered: orientation, field discovery, validation, two-step confirmation, and submission. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated domain.