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. It discloses the informational content the tool returns and implies a read-only describe operation, but it does not explicitly state that no calculation is performed, there are no side effects, or what format the response takes.
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?
A single sentence covers all major content areas without filler. It is front-loaded with inputs and remains compact; it could be slightly more structured by using an explicit 'Describes...' verb, but it is appropriately sized.
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 introspection tool with no output schema, the description adequately enumerates what the returned documentation will cover. The only meaningful omission is an explicit link to the workflow of calling 'calculate' after learning the inputs, but sibling names and the simple scope keep it complete enough.
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 the description adds useful semantic context by clarifying that the 'inputs' are the calculator's parameters, not arguments to this function. This meets the baseline for no-parameter tools and prevents confusion.
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's purpose: it presents the calculator's input parameters (with units, ranges, defaults), outputs, assumptions, and underlying tables. The title reinforces this. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling 'calculate', but the descriptive intent is unmistakable.
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 description implies this tool should be used when an agent needs to know the calculator's inputs, outputs, assumptions, or underlying tables. However, it never explicitly says to use 'calculate' for actual computation or gives when-not-to-use conditions, so routing must be inferred from sibling names.
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 maps to a distinct function: running the calculator, describing the calculator, describing the enquiry flow, listing enquiry fields, and submitting an enquiry. There is no practical overlap between the calculation tools and the enquiry tools, and the two describe tools cover different objects.
The set mixes standalone verbs (calculate), verb_noun compounds (submit_enquiry), and noun-initial names (calculator_describe, enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields). The naming is readable and consistently snake_case, but it does not follow a single predictable pattern.
Five tools is well-scoped for a single calculator plus enquiry workflow. Each tool covers a necessary step or piece of information, and none feel redundant or extraneous.
The surface covers the full user journey: understand the calculator, compute a cost, understand the enquiry process, inspect the fields, and submit with two-step confirmation. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated purpose.