enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on HVAC Maintenance 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. It covers what happens on submission: human providers quote directly, nothing is bought or paid, no quote is guaranteed, and it is free. It also notes what information is returned, which is valuable transparency.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with 'Read first' and a clear statement of what it does. Every sentence adds meaningful information: the action, the non-committal nature, and the return content. No filler.
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 describe-style tool with no output schema, this is complete. It explains the purpose, the scope, the user-facing consequences, and the information returned. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to decide whether and how to use 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 there is nothing for the description to explain. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description appropriately does not attempt to invent parameter semantics.
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 that this tool's job is to explain what submit_enquiry does, with specific details about the enquiry outcome. It explicitly references the sibling submit_enquiry tool and positions itself as the 'read first' companion, making differentiation easy.
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 phrase 'Read first' is a direct usage instruction telling the agent to consult this before acting on submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly state 'do not use this to submit an enquiry', but the contrast with submit_enquiry is strong enough that the intended workflow is 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 distinct role: enquiry_describe explains the process, enquiry_fields provides the form schema, and submit_enquiry performs the submission. There is no meaningful overlap, and the descriptions reinforce when each should be used.
The names share a clear topical connection to 'enquiry', but the pattern is mixed: submit_enquiry follows verb_noun, while enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields lead with the noun. The names are readable, but the convention is not fully consistent.
Three tools is exactly right for this narrow workflow: one to orient the agent, one to supply the schema, and one to handle submission. Each tool has a clear purpose and none feel redundant.
The tool set fully covers the enquiry lifecycle described: understanding the process, retrieving required fields, and submitting with consent confirmation. There are no obvious dead ends, and the two-step confirmation is handled within submit_enquiry itself.