calculator_describeThe inputs this calculator takes (with units, ranges and defaults), the outputs it returns, and the assumptions and tables behind it.
| 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey what the tool returns: documented inputs, outputs, assumptions, and tables. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, does not perform calculations itself, or have any other behavioral characteristics, so the disclosure is only partially complete.
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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the key content areas and adds useful parenthetical detail without any filler. Every phrase contributes to the agent's understanding of what the tool provides.
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 tool, the description covers the essential content categories: input semantics, output semantics, and underlying assumptions/tables. It lacks an explicit statement about alternatives or the absence of side effects, but it is complete enough for an agent to decide 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, so the baseline is 4. The description does not introduce any confusion about tool arguments, and the mention of units, ranges, and defaults refers to the calculator's inputs that are described by this tool rather than to the tool's own 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 description clearly identifies the resource (the IHT calculator) and specifies what the tool will convey: inputs with units/ranges/defaults, outputs, assumptions, and tables. However, it is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb statement like 'Returns...' or 'Describes...', and it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling describe tools such as enquiry_describe.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like calculate or enquiry_describe. The description implies that this is the tool for understanding the calculator's behavior, but it never states conditions, exclusions, or which sibling to use instead.
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: calculate runs the calculator, calculator_describe documents it, enquiry_describe explains the submission process, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the two-step submission. There is no meaningful overlap that would cause an agent to select the wrong tool.
Names do not follow a single pattern: calculate and submit_enquiry are verb-led, while calculator_describe and enquiry_describe are noun-verb reversed, and enquiry_fields is noun-noun. The inconsistency makes expected naming behavior hard to predict.
Five tools is well-scoped for the calculator-plus-enquiry workflow. Each tool serves a necessary step, from running the calculation to understanding it, inspecting fields, and submitting with confirmation.
The tool set covers the full user journey: calculate the IHT figure, understand the calculator's inputs and assumptions, read guidance on the enquiry, inspect required fields, and submit with an explicit two-step confirmation. There are no obvious dead ends for the stated domain.