enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on ISO Certification 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 burden and does well: it explicitly states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, and that it is free. It also discloses the return content. It could more explicitly state that enquiry_describe itself performs no submission, but the 'Read first' framing makes this reasonably clear.
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 sentences with front-loaded 'Read first' and a compact summary of the tool's output. Minor redundancy between 'Nothing is bought, ordered or paid' and 'it is free,' but the text is appropriately sized and structured for quick scanning.
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 helper tool, the description is complete: it explains the purpose, sets behavioral expectations, and lists exactly what information is returned. An agent has enough context to invoke it and interpret the result.
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 and a 100% schema-covered empty schema, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful context about what the returned explanation covers, which is more than needed for 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 identifies the tool as a read-first explainer: it 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does' on ISO Certification Cost and enumerates the returned content (who receives details, consent wording, confirmation). This differentiates it from the actual submission sibling submit_enquiry, and the title reinforces that the result is an enquiry, not a purchase 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 a direct cue to use this tool before taking any action, which implicitly distinguishes it from submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly reference the enquiry_fields sibling or state when not to use it, but the purpose and timing are clear enough.
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 field schema, and one submits the enquiry. There is no meaningful overlap between them.
The names are readable and all reference 'enquiry', but the pattern is inconsistent: 'enquiry_describe' and 'enquiry_fields' use a noun-first style while 'submit_enquiry' uses a verb-first style. A fully consistent verb_noun set would be clearer.
Three tools is well-scoped for a focused enquiry-submission flow. Each tool addresses a distinct step: understanding, schema retrieval, and submission.
The tool surface fully covers the enquiry submission lifecycle: describing the process, exposing required fields, validating consent, and submitting with confirmation. No obvious missing operations are needed for this narrow domain.