enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Interceptor Cleaning 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, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does so thoroughly: nothing is bought/ordered/paid, no quote is guaranteed, it is free, and it lists exactly what is returned (who receives 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?
The description is short and front-loaded with 'Read first,' then delivers behavioral guarantees and return content in a few compact sentences. Every sentence earns its place with 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 informational tool with no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, side effects, cost, and return contents. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly or interpret its result is missing.
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 takes zero parameters, so the empty schema and 100% coverage provide the baseline of 4; the description appropriately adds no parameter details because none exist.
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 names a specific verb/resource pair: it 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does on Interceptor Cleaning Cost.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling submit_enquiry by positioning itself as the read-first explanation, and clarifies it is not a purchase, order, or guaranteed quote.
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?
'Read first' is an explicit instruction to use this tool before acting on submit_enquiry, giving the agent a clear ordering. It does not, however, mention the other sibling enquiry_fields or state explicit exclusions, so it falls just short of full alternative-routing guidance.
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 workflow, one provides the field schema, and one submits the enquiry. There is no meaningful overlap even though all tools relate to the same enquiry process.
enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields share a consistent prefix, but submit_enquiry flips to a verb-first pattern. The names are readable and predictable enough, but the convention is not fully consistent across the set.
Three tools is exactly right for this narrow, single-purpose enquiry workflow. Each tool serves a necessary step: understanding the process, fetching the schema, and submitting with confirmation.
The tool set fully covers the enquiry lifecycle for this domain: discovery, field requirements, validation, consent, and confirmation. There are no obvious missing operations for a simple enquiry submission flow.