enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on NEBOSH Course 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 takes on the transparency burden. It discloses key behavioral facts about the described flow: nothing is bought/ordered/paid, no quote is guaranteed, and it is free. It also states what the tool returns, including who receives the details, consent wording, and confirmation method. It does not explicitly state that this tool itself is side-effect-free, but 'Read first' and 'States plainly' strongly imply a read-only explanation.
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 extremely efficient: a front-loaded 'Read first' followed by one dense sentence that covers purpose, scope, constraints, and output. There is no redundancy or 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, no-output-schema explainer tool, the description is nearly complete: it names the flow it explains, states key constraints, and lists what is returned. It could add an explicit mention that this is the correct tool to understand submit_enquiry before calling it and how it relates to enquiry_fields, but the core context is present.
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 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics for the description to add; the empty schema plus the tool's explanatory purpose are sufficient.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does on NEBOSH Course Cost'. It clearly marks this as an explanatory tool rather than the submission action itself, which differentiates it from submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling enquiry_fields, and the title's 'What you get: an ENQUIRY' could be momentarily misleading, so it stops short of a 5.
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 instruction 'Read first' gives an explicit usage cue that this tool should be called before the submission flow. The description also gives enough context about what submit_enquiry does so an agent can decide this is informational. It does not name enquiry_fields or give when-not-to-use conditions, so it lacks 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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct role: enquiry_describe provides the narrative context, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the actual submission. There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity.
The tools share an 'enquiry' theme but do not follow a single pattern: enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields are noun-first, while submit_enquiry is verb-first. Still, the names are readable and semantically distinguishable.
Three tools is well-scoped for this focused enquiry-submission workflow. Each tool earns its place: context, field definitions, and submission.
The toolset fully covers the enquiry lifecycle: explaining the process, defining required fields, and submitting with a two-step consent confirmation. No dead ends or obvious missing operations for the stated purpose.