enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on LEV Testing Cost: 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 transparency burden and does well: it explicitly states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that quotes are not guaranteed, and that the enquiry is free. It also mentions what information the tool returns, giving a clear read-only, informational profile.
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 imperative 'Read first,' then delivers the core facts in a direct sequence. It is slightly dense but every sentence contributes meaning, and there is no redundant 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?
For a zero-parameter informational tool, the description covers what the tool explains, what it returns, and the key caveats. It does not require an output schema because it describes the return content in prose, and it adequately supports an agent deciding to call it 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 coverage is effectively complete, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's output and purpose rather than inventing parameter details.
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 a descriptive helper that explains what submit_enquiry does, including the key facts that no purchase or payment occurs and no quote is guaranteed. It names the related sibling submit_enquiry, which helps differentiate it from an actual submission action, though it does not explicitly contrast with 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 'Read first' signals that this tool should be used before engaging with submit_enquiry, giving a clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it against enquiry_fields, leaving some routing inference to the agent.
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 clearly distinct role: enquiry_describe explains the workflow and consent, enquiry_fields provides the input schema, and submit_enquiry executes the two-step submission. There is no meaningful overlap that would cause an agent to select the wrong tool.
The names are all lowercase and readable, but they follow mixed conventions: enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields use a noun-first prefix while submit_enquiry uses verb-first. A consistent pattern like describe_enquiry, list_enquiry_fields, and submit_enquiry would be cleaner.
Three tools is well-scoped for a single enquiry submission workflow: one explainer, one schema provider, and one action tool. Each tool earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary surface area.
The tool set covers the full submission flow: understanding the process, inspecting all required fields, submitting with consent, and confirming with a token. The workflow has no dead ends within its stated scope.