enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Hernia 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it excels: it explicitly states no purchase occurs, no payment is made, no quote is guaranteed, the service is free, and it describes what information is returned (recipients, consent wording, confirmation method).
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 the critical 'Read first' instruction. Every sentence adds distinct value: what the tool does, what it does not do, and what it returns. No wasted words.
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 informational tool, the description is fully complete. It explains the tool's purpose, disambiguates it from submission, clarifies non-purchase expectations, and summarizes the return content. An agent has everything needed to use it correctly.
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 is empty and there is nothing for the description to explain. This matches the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools; no additional parameter semantics are needed.
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 the tool's purpose: it describes what submit_enquiry does, distinguishing it as an informational pre-read rather than a purchase or submission. The title reinforces the distinction from actual enquiry submission. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like submit_enquiry and enquiry_fields.
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' explicitly signals when to use this tool: before submitting an enquiry. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context strongly implies this is the orientation/reference tool for understanding the submission flow.
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, separate role: enquiry_describe explains the process, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the submission. There is no meaningful overlap between the informational and action-oriented tools.
Tool names are consistently lowercase snake_case and clearly reference the enquiry domain. Minor inconsistency exists because two names start with 'enquiry_' while one uses verb-first 'submit_enquiry', but the pattern is still predictable and readable.
Three tools is a small but appropriate set for a narrow single-purpose workflow. Each tool earns its place by covering description, field discovery, and submission without unnecessary bloat.
The enquiry submission workflow is well covered: the agent can understand the process, retrieve all required fields, and complete the two-step consent confirm flow. A minor gap is the lack of any way to check enquiry status or cancel after submission, but this does not block the core purpose.