enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on FORS Accreditation 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 behavioral burden and largely meets it: it frames the tool as a read-first explainer and discloses return contents ('who receives the details, the consent wording, and how the person confirms'). It also clarifies the broader enquiry is free and non-binding, though this refers mainly to submit_enquiry's behavior rather than this tool's side effects.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with 'Read first,' and every sentence contributes: purpose, non-commitment clarifications, and return content. No redundant or filler language.
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 simple 0-param informational tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the topic, what is not happening, and what is returned. It slightly under-specifies the output's format and does not position enquiry_fields relative to this tool, but these are minor for this low-complexity case.
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 already fully covers this with an empty properties object. Per the rubric baseline for 0-param tools, the description does not need to add parameter-level detail.
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 states a specific informational purpose: 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does on FORS Accreditation Cost' and lists what the user receives. It explicitly names the sibling submit_enquiry, so an agent can distinguish the describe step from the submission action.
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 opening imperative 'Read first' provides explicit sequencing guidance, telling the agent to invoke this before submit_enquiry. It names submit_enquiry as the subject, but it does not address enquiry_fields or give a when-not-to-use condition.
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 explains the process, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the submission. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
The naming is readable and scoped to 'enquiry', but the pattern is inconsistent: enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields are noun-first while submit_enquiry is verb-first. A more consistent set would use describe_enquiry and get_enquiry_fields or similar.
Three tools is appropriate for a focused enquiry-submission workflow: one to set expectations, one for field definitions, and one to submit. Each tool earns its place with no redundant surface.
The workflow is fully covered: an agent can read about the process, fetch the required field schema, validate and submit an enquiry, and handle the two-step confirmation. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated purpose.