enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Football Trials Database: 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 of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the underlying enquiry is not a purchase, no quote is guaranteed, and it is free, and it details what the describe tool returns. This goes beyond a generic 'describes submit_enquiry' statement.
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, each earning its place: a directive to read first, a plain explanation of what the action does, and a summary of the returned information. 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 tool, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool is for, clarifies important caveats about the underlying enquiry, and lists the specific information it returns.
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 semantics are not applicable. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this is a solid score; the description focuses on behavior and return value instead.
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 a specific purpose: it explains what submit_enquiry does on Football Trials Database. The title and 'Read first' framing make it distinct from the sibling action tools, particularly submit_enquiry itself.
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 instruction 'Read first' explicitly signals when to use this tool: before using submit_enquiry. It gives clear context about the enquiry process, although it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.
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 into two clear clusters: decision-guide tools (checker_start, checker_answer, checker_tree) and enquiry tools (enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields, submit_enquiry). Each tool has a distinct role, though checker_answer and checker_tree both support reasoning through the guide and could occasionally be confused.
The checker_ and enquiry_ prefixes create a readable pattern, but submit_enquiry breaks the convention by leading with the verb instead of the domain prefix. Within the prefixed groups, terms like start, answer, tree, describe, and fields mix verb-like and noun-like naming styles.
Six tools is well-scoped for the apparent purpose: a decision guide plus an enquiry submission flow. Every tool earns its place, and the count is neither thin nor bloated.
The checker cluster gives complete coverage of the decision guide: start, step through answers, and view the full tree. The enquiry cluster covers explanation, schema, and two-step consent-based submission, so the two workflows have no dead ends.