enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on IT Support Cost 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, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so well. It explicitly states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, that the service is free, and what the tool returns: recipient details, consent wording, and confirmation method. This gives an agent an accurate model of side effects and outcomes.
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 the 'Read first' directive. Both sentences carry meaningful content: the first establishes what the tool explains, and the second clarifies the non-transactional nature and return information. No wasted words.
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 descriptive tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, what it does not do, what the user can expect, and what information the underlying submit_enquiry process returns. An agent can decide correctly whether to invoke this tool before submit_enquiry.
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 schema already reflects that, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The description appropriately adds no parameter-related noise; the baseline for zero-parameter tools applies.
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 ('states'), a specific resource ('submit_enquiry on IT Support Cost Calculator'), and clearly frames the tool as the explanatory counterpart to submit_enquiry. It distinguishes itself from the actual submission tool by emphasizing 'Read first' and describing rather than performing the enquiry.
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 instruction 'Read first' clearly signals when to use this tool: before interacting with submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough given the sibling tools and the description's meta-purpose.
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.