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 burden. It discloses what content the tool provides (inputs, outputs, assumptions, tables), which is useful, but it does not describe any operational behavior, safety profile, or what format the returned information 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?
The description is a single, information-dense sentence with no filler. It is efficiently structured and front-loads the core content categories without redundancy.
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 no-parameter informational tool, the description covers the essential content an agent needs to know before calling it. It lacks an explicit statement of output format or the alternative 'calculate' tool, but it is otherwise complete for its low complexity.
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, so baseline for this dimension is 4. The description mentions calculator inputs with units, ranges, and defaults, but these are domain details of the calculator being described, not parameters of this tool, so no additional param semantics are needed.
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 providing information about the calculator: the inputs it takes, outputs it returns, and underlying assumptions/tables. It is implicitly distinguished from the sibling 'calculate' tool, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'describes' in the description itself.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus its siblings, particularly 'calculate'. The description implies this is for learning about the calculator rather than performing calculations, but it never states this explicitly or names 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.
Each tool has a distinct role: calculate executes the calculator, calculator_describe documents it, enquiry_describe explains the enquiry process, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the submission. No two tools appear to do the same thing.
Naming conventions are mixed: calculate and submit_enquiry are verb-led, while calculator_describe, enquiry_describe, and enquiry_fields are noun-led. The lack of a consistent verb_noun or noun_verb pattern makes the set feel uneven.
Five tools is well-scoped for this small site: two support the calculator workflow and three support the enquiry workflow. Each tool has a clear purpose and none are redundant.
The calculator has run and documentation coverage, and the enquiry has explanation, field schema, and a validated two-step submission process. The core user journeys are fully supported with no obvious dead ends.