enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Motor Rewind 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 full burden. It discloses that the tool returns specific information (who receives details, consent wording, confirmation method) and clarifies that nothing is purchased, ordered, or guaranteed, which is transparent about its informational nature. It doesn't explicitly state it has no side effects, but the descriptive role implies safety.
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 two sentences and front-loads the core purpose ('Read first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does...'). It lists key facts efficiently without fluff. While it could be trimmed, each clause carries meaningful content, so it earns a strong score.
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, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete: it explains the tool's role, what it returns, and the context of the associated submission process. An agent would know exactly what to expect and when to use it. Nothing essential 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 zero parameters, and the instructions set a baseline of 4 for such cases. The description adds no parameter-specific information because there are none, but it does describe what the tool returns, which indirectly clarifies what callers can expect. No compensation 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 explicitly states that the tool 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does' on Motor Rewind Cost, naming the exact resource and behavior. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tools by focusing on explanation rather than action, making its purpose unambiguous.
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' implies the tool should be used before submitting an enquiry, providing a clear directive. While it doesn't explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, the context of siblings (enquiry_fields, submit_enquiry) makes it obvious this is a preparatory tool, so the guidance is adequate.
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 clearly separate roles: enquiry_describe provides instructions, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the action. There is no functional overlap, and the descriptions reinforce the intended usage order.
All names use snake_case, but the pattern is not uniform: enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields share a noun-prefix grouping while submit_enquiry follows verb-noun. This is readable and somewhat predictable, but the syntactic inconsistency prevents a higher score.
Three tools is well-scoped for the single, focused flow of submitting a motor rewind enquiry. Each tool covers an essential step—orientation, field discovery, and submission—so none feels redundant or missing.
For the stated purpose, the tool set covers the full journey: describe the process, retrieve the form fields, and submit with consent and confirmation. The two-step submission handles validation and consent in-band, so there are no dead ends or obvious gaps.