enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Industrial Roofing 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It makes clear this is a read-only explanatory tool that 'states' and 'returns' information, and it enumerates what the user is not committing to ('Nothing is bought, ordered or paid; no quote is guaranteed; it is free'). It could be more explicit that calling this tool itself has no side effects, but the language strongly supports that.
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 'Read first', then delivers the core purpose and return content in two more sentences. It is slightly repetitive with the title, especially around the 'not a purchase' framing, but it does not waste words on irrelevant detail.
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 complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, what it clarifies for the user, and what specific information it returns: who receives details, the consent wording, and how confirmation happens. No critical context is missing for correct selection and invocation.
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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add at the parameter level. Per the calibration baseline for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description does not need to compensate.
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 tool as one that 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does', with a specific verb and resource, and further clarifies that it is informational, not a purchase or quote action. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tool enquiry_fields, so it misses the top tier on sibling differentiation, but its purpose is 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?
The opening 'Read first' is a direct usage cue telling the agent to consult this tool before acting on submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly enumerate alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the instruction and the contrast with submit_enquiry imply the correct workflow.
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 role: one explains the process, one provides the input schema, and one handles submission. There is no overlap between describing, field validation, and submitting.
All names use snake_case and are readable, but the pattern is slightly inconsistent: two tools start with 'enquiry_' (enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields) while one uses a verb-first form (submit_enquiry). The shared prefix provides conceptual consistency, but the verb/noun order varies.
Three tools is well-scoped for the narrow purpose of submitting an enquiry to a roofing cost service. Each tool is necessary and there is no bloat.
The tool surface covers the full flow: understanding the process, retrieving the required fields, and submitting with a two-step confirmation. No obvious missing operations exist for this single-purpose domain.