enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Lease Extension Quotes: 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 present, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses output content and clarifies the non-purchase, non-guaranteed nature of the enquiry. It does not explicitly say the tool executes no side effects, but the 'describe' and 'returns' framing makes that safe to infer.
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 short, front-loaded with the 'Read first' instruction, and clearly structured around purpose and return content. Every sentence earns its place without repeating the tool name or schema information.
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, no-output-schema tool, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does, what it returns, and how it relates to submit_enquiry. An agent has enough context to call it safely and understand the result.
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 input schema has zero parameters and complete coverage, and a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but none is 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?
Clearly identifies itself as a descriptive companion to submit_enquiry: it 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does' and 'returns who receives the details, the consent wording, and how the person confirms.' This distinguishes it from the submit action and from enquiry_fields.
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 opening directive 'Read first' tells the agent to use this before acting, and it explicitly names submit_enquiry as the action being described. It does not explicitly contrast itself with enquiry_fields or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full alternative routing.
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 three tools have mostly distinct roles: enquiry_describe explains the process, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the actual submission. However, enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields are both informational and could be confused by an agent deciding where to start.
Tool names follow a readable snake_case convention, and two share an enquiry_ prefix. The pattern is slightly mixed because enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields use noun-first naming while submit_enquiry uses verb-first naming, but the intent is still clear.
Three tools is minimal but appropriate for the narrow purpose of submitting a lease extension enquiry. Each tool maps to a necessary step: understand, get fields, and submit. The count does not feel bloated, though it is at the low end.
The set covers the core enquiry lifecycle well: introductory guidance, field discovery, and a two-step confirmed submission. A minor gap is that there is no tool to check submission status or resend the confirmation email, which could leave an agent unable to resolve failures.