enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Oil Tank Removal 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 full behavioral disclosure. It states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, that the enquiry is free, and it details what the tool returns: who receives the details, consent wording, and confirmation method. This is rich, honest behavioral context for a tool whose purpose is to explain another tool.
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 concise, front-loaded with the essential 'Read first', and every sentence contributes: what the tool does, what it does not do, and what it returns. There is no filler or redundant restatement.
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 descriptive tool, the description fully covers the agent's needs: it explains the tool's role, its relationship to submit_enquiry, key caveats, and the return content. No output schema exists, so the explicit enumeration of return details is especially valuable.
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 coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline of 4 applies: parameter semantics are trivially satisfiable.
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 itself as the explanatory counterpart to submit_enquiry: 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does'. It gives a specific verb/resource ('describes submit_enquiry') and distinguishes itself from the sibling action by clarifying it is not a purchase, order, or guaranteed quote. An agent can immediately understand that this is a pre-read explainer, not the action tool.
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 phrase 'Read first' gives explicit sequential guidance to use this tool before invoking submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly mention when to use enquiry_fields or provide formal when-not-to-use exclusions, but the description's framing makes the intended usage context clear.
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 distinct roles: describe the enquiry process, provide the field schema, and submit the enquiry. There is slight potential confusion because enquiry_describe and submit_enquiry both explain the submission flow, but their actual functions are easy to tell apart.
The shared 'enquiry' root gives some thematic consistency, but the naming patterns are mixed: enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields lead with the noun, while submit_enquiry leads with the verb. This makes the set feel inconsistent and less predictable than a uniform verb_noun convention.
Three tools is a well-scoped size for this narrow purpose: one to explain the flow, one to define the input schema, and one to perform submission. Each tool earns its place and there is no redundancy or bloat.
The tool set fully covers the enquiry lifecycle: an agent can understand the process, fetch all required fields, validate and submit, and handle the confirmation step. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations within the stated domain.