enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Martyn's Law 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?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It signals a non-mutating information tool via 'States... returns' and, while those details mostly describe submit_enquiry's behavior, the wording makes clear that the describe call itself only returns content. It could be more explicit that calling this tool performs no submission.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the imperative 'Read first'. Every sentence adds a distinct piece of information: purpose, non-transactional nature, and returned content.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully summarizes what the tool returns: recipient details, consent wording, and confirmation method. It is complete enough for a simple zero-parameter describe tool, though a note on the return format would make it fully self-sufficient.
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 schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Baseline 4 is appropriate because the description does not need to compensate for any parameter gaps.
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 names a specific verb and resource: it 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does' and lists what it returns. This clearly separates the read-only explainer role from the action-oriented sibling submit_enquiry and the fields-oriented 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?
'Read first' explicitly tells the agent to call this before submitting, and the description clarifies what process it documents. It does not contrast with enquiry_fields or give an explicit when-not-to-use rule, so it falls just short of a 5.
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: describing the process, providing the field schema, and submitting the enquiry. There is no overlap in purpose even though two tools are informational.
All names use snake_case and revolve around 'enquiry', but the ordering is mixed: two start with 'enquiry_' while 'submit_enquiry' places the verb first. This is readable but not a uniform verb_noun or noun_verb pattern.
Three tools are well-scoped for a single focused workflow: orient the user, expose the schema, and submit with confirmation. Each tool earns its place without redundancy.
The tool set covers the full enquiry lifecycle: explaining what happens, defining all inputs and options, and handling two-step consent-based submission. There are no obvious dead ends for the stated purpose.