enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Landlord Database Check: 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 behavioral burden and does well: it states the tool returns who receives the details, the consent wording, and how confirmation happens. It also clarifies that the enquiry is free and non-binding. It does not explicitly say the describe tool itself has zero side effects, but its informational framing makes this 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?
The description is front-loaded with "Read first" and each sentence earns its place: purpose, key exclusions, and return contents. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter informational tool, 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?
Given zero parameters, no output schema, and low complexity, the description is largely complete: it names the subject tool, the outcome, the exclusions, and the return contents. It could go slightly further by describing the exact format of the returned explanation, but that is not critical for correct 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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is trivially complete, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters and instead uses the space for behavioral and output context.
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 an explainer: it "States plainly what submit_enquiry does" on Landlord Database Check. It distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by clarifying that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid and that no quote is guaranteed, so an agent can tell this is informational rather than transactional.
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" explicitly signals that this tool should be used before submit_enquiry, providing clear temporal guidance. It references submit_enquiry directly so the agent understands this is the pre-submission explainer, though it does not explicitly list when-not-to-use conditions or alternatives.
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.
The tool purposes are mostly distinct: checker_start begins the guide, checker_answer advances it, and checker_tree provides the full decision tree for reasoning. There is minor overlap between checker_answer and checker_tree, but the descriptions clarify their intended uses enough to avoid serious misselection.
Naming is readable but not fully consistent: checker tools use a checker_ prefix, while enquiry tools mostly use an enquiry_ prefix, and submit_enquiry reverses the pattern to verb_noun. The mixed orientation is understandable but lacks a single predictable convention.
With 6 tools covering two well-defined workflows—the landlord checker decision guide and the enquiry submission process—the count feels appropriately scoped. Each tool earns its place without redundancy or bloat.
The checker workflow is fully covered by start, answer, and tree, allowing both interactive and end-to-end reasoning. The enquiry workflow is also complete with describe, fields, and submit covering explanation, data collection, validation, consent, and submission.