enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Gallbladder Surgery 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 full behavioral disclosure responsibility. It explains this is a descriptive tool, not a transaction: 'Nothing is bought, ordered or paid; no quote is guaranteed; it is free.' It also discloses what the tool returns: who receives details, consent wording, and confirmation method. It does not explicitly state 'this tool performs no submission,' but the framing makes that 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 compact and front-loaded with 'Read first.' Each sentence earns its place: what the tool does, what it does not do, cost, and return content. The title also reinforces the core distinction from a purchase or quote.
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 explanatory tool with no output schema, this description is complete. It tells the agent when to use it, what behavior to expect, and what information the response will contain. No critical operational detail is missing.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameters for the description to explain, and the description appropriately does not invent any. No additional semantic burden exists.
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 precisely what the tool does: it is an explanatory tool that 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does' in the context of Gallbladder Surgery Cost. It clearly differentiates itself from the action-oriented sibling submit_enquiry and the field-oriented enquiry_fields by being the 'Read first' reference.
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 'Read first' is explicit usage guidance, signaling the agent to consult this tool before performing an enquiry. It also clarifies the non-purchase/non-guaranteed-quote context, which helps the agent decide when an enquiry is appropriate. It does not explicitly name when to prefer enquiry_fields, but the ordering and purpose are 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 clear, distinct role: one describes the enquiry flow, one provides the field schema, and one performs the submission. There is no meaningful overlap between them.
All names are lowercase snake_case and share the 'enquiry' root, but 'enquiry_describe' and 'enquiry_fields' use noun-first naming while 'submit_enquiry' is verb-first. This is a minor inconsistency that does not impede readability.
Three tools is well-scoped for a narrow enquiry-submission workflow: an overview, a schema, and a submit action. Each tool earns its place.
The surface fully supports the stated purpose: an agent can read the flow, get all field requirements, and perform the two-step consent-based submission. No obvious dead ends or missing operations for this domain.