calculator_describeThe inputs this calculator takes (with units, ranges and defaults), the outputs it returns, and the assumptions and tables behind it.
| 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 provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses what the tool offers: inputs with units/ranges/defaults, outputs, assumptions, and underlying tables. This effectively communicates that it is a descriptive/documentation tool with no visible mutation or external side effects, though it does not explicitly state 'read-only' or 'does not calculate'.
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 a single focused sentence that lists exactly what the tool covers without redundant wording. It front-loads the inputs, then outputs, then assumptions/tables, and every phrase adds useful information. The title supplies the specific calculator context, keeping the description tight.
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 describe tool with no output schema, the description gives a solid outline of what the agent receives: inputs, outputs, assumptions, and tables. It could be slightly more explicit that the result is a descriptive text/documentation rather than a computed result, but given the tool name and siblings, this is not a major gap.
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, so the schema provides no parameter meaning and the baseline is 4. The description adds context by noting that the subject calculator's inputs include units, ranges, and defaults, which is helpful for an agent deciding what to learn from the describe output. It does not need to document invocation parameters since there are none.
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 title and description clearly identify the resource: the PAYE deadline calculator 2026/27. The description states it covers the calculator's inputs, outputs, assumptions, and tables, which distinguishes it from the sibling calculate tool. However, the description itself is a noun phrase rather than an explicit action statement like 'returns' or 'describes', so it is clear but slightly implicit.
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 description makes clear that this tool provides explanatory information about a calculator's behavior, so an agent can see it is for understanding the calculator rather than performing a calculation. It does not explicitly say 'use calculate for actual computation' or list exclusions, but the context and sibling tool names make the intended use reasonably apparent.
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: one runs the calculator, one describes the calculator, one explains the enquiry flow, one provides enquiry fields, and one submits the enquiry. Even the two 'describe' tools are cleanly separated by subject matter and explicit descriptions.
The names mix verb-only ('calculate'), noun-first with verb suffix ('calculator_describe', 'enquiry_describe'), and verb-noun ('submit_enquiry'), with 'enquiry_fields' following a noun-noun pattern. The style is readable and consistently lowercase/underscore, but the naming conventions are not uniform.
Five tools is well-scoped for a server that provides a single deadline calculator plus a guided enquiry submission flow. Each tool earns its place, and there is no bloat or sense of missing infrastructure.
The calculator has both a run tool and a describe tool to expose assumptions, and the enquiry flow has describe, fields, and a two-step submit tool with confirmation handling. The surface covers the full lifecycle for the server's apparent purpose.