enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Grain Storage Costs: 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 provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does so thoroughly. It states what the tool returns, key behavioral traits of the underlying enquiry process, and critical caveats: nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, no quote is guaranteed, and the enquiry is free.
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, front-loaded with 'Read first,' and every sentence adds information. It covers purpose, behavioral caveats, and return value without 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 zero-parameter documentation tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and the important restrictions around the enquiry process, leaving no critical ambiguity for an agent deciding whether to call it.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because nothing is missing regarding parameters.
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 title and description make the purpose unmistakable: this tool describes what submit_enquiry does rather than performing the action. It uses a specific verb ('States plainly') and resource ('submit_enquiry on Grain Storage Costs'), and clearly distinguishes itself from the actual submit operation with anti-confusion language like 'not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote.'
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 description opens with 'Read first,' which is an explicit signal that this tool should be consulted before acting on submit_enquiry. It establishes the context for use, though it does not explicitly contrast this tool with enquiry_fields or list exclusions such as 'do not use this to submit an enquiry.'
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: describe explains the enquiry process, fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the actual submission. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Two tools share the enquiry_ prefix (enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields) while the action tool is verb-first (submit_enquiry). The naming is readable and consistently snake_case, but the pattern is not uniform.
Three tools are well-scoped for the server's single purpose: describing, introspecting, and submitting an enquiry. Each tool earns its place without redundancy or bloat.
The toolset fully covers the enquiry lifecycle: discover what the enquiry does, learn the required fields, and submit with consent and confirmation. There are no obvious gaps or dead ends for the stated domain.