enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Late Payment Interest: 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses what happens (starts an enquiry with human providers who quote directly), what does not happen (nothing bought, ordered, paid; no quote guaranteed; free), and what is returned (who receives details, consent wording, confirmation mechanism). This is substantive behavioral disclosure for a read/describe tool.
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?
'Read first' is front-loaded as an immediate directive, and every sentence earns its place by clarifying scope, exclusions, and return content. It is dense but not bloated; only slightly redundant with the title's 'not a purchase' phrasing, which prevents a 5.
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 describe tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the tool's purpose, what it does not do, and what information it returns. No additional detail an agent needs to use it correctly is missing.
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 0 parameters, so the schema describes nothing and the description is not required to document params. Per the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4 — there is nothing more the description could add here.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('states plainly what submit_enquiry does') and the subject (Late Payment Interest enquiries with human providers). The title reinforces the purpose by listing what you get. It clearly differentiates from siblings like calculate and submit_enquiry — an agent knows this is the explanatory/metadata tool, not the action tool.
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 an explicit directive implying it should be consulted before invoking submit_enquiry, and the exclusion 'not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote' clarifies what it is not. However, it does not name alternative tools to route between or specify when NOT to use it beyond those negations, leaving some usage context implicit.
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.