enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Grease Trap Cleaning 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 provided, the description carries full burden. It transparently states that 'nothing is bought, ordered or paid; no quote is guaranteed; it is free,' and enumerates the return content (who receives details, consent wording, confirmation method). This discloses the tool's non-destructive, informational nature without relying on annotations.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with 'Read first.' It conveys the core purpose, key exclusions, and return content without excessive verbosity. The title is a bit unconventional but doesn't detract from the description's clarity.
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 fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and how it should be used. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to correctly invoke 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, so the schema covers everything (100% coverage). The description doesn't need to add parameter details; per calibration, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4, and the description adds no confusion.
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 uses a specific verb ('states plainly') and a specific resource ('submit_enquiry on Grease Trap Cleaning Cost'), clearly distinguishing itself from sibling tools: it describes what submit_enquiry does, not the action itself. This makes the purpose unambiguous.
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?
It opens with 'Read first,' giving an explicit instruction to use this tool before submit_enquiry. While it doesn't name alternative tools like enquiry_fields or specify when not to use it, the directive is clear and actionable for the agent.
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 purpose: one explains the enquiry flow, one provides the field schema, and one submits the enquiry. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Two tools use the noun-prefixed pattern enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields, while the third is submit_enquiry, which reverses the action-noun order. The names are still readable and follow the same domain, but the pattern is slightly inconsistent.
Three tools are well-scoped for the narrow purpose of facilitating an enquiry submission. Each tool earns its place without adding unnecessary surface area.
The set covers the full enquiry flow: explaining what happens, providing the schema, and handling the two-step confirmation submission. There are no obvious gaps for the stated domain.