enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on IHT 2027 Calculator: 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 does so excellently. It discloses that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, that it is free, and it previews the returned content: recipients of details, consent wording, and 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?
Three short sentences with zero filler. The critical directive 'Read first' is front-loaded, followed by the core behavior and then the return-value highlights. Every sentence earns its place.
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 explanatory tool with no output schema, this is complete. It states the purpose, scope, what is NOT true about the action, cost, and exactly what information the user will receive. An agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret this tool 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 parameter explanations are unnecessary; the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds useful context about what the tool returns instead of parameter details, which is appropriate here.
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 verb 'states plainly' plus the specific resource 'what submit_enquiry does on IHT 2027 Calculator' makes the purpose unmistakable. The title further differentiates it from a purchase or quote, so an agent can tell this is explanatory rather than transactional.
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' gives a clear cue to consult this tool before acting, and the description explicitly frames it as the preface to submit_enquiry. It does not name sibling tools like calculator_describe as alternatives, but the context is strong enough for correct selection.
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.