enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Payroll Dates: 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 provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so well. It states that no purchase or payment occurs, no quote is guaranteed, the service is free, and it explicitly lists what the tool returns: recipient details, consent wording, and confirmation method.
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 front-loaded with 'Read first' and delivers all key information in a few compact sentences. It has no filler, avoids repeating the title, and every sentence adds useful context.
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 tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what the tool explains, what it does not do, and what it returns. No important invocation or selection detail 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 input schema is empty with zero parameters, so no parameter-level documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on purpose and output rather than parameter details, matching the baseline for a parameterless tool.
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 states the tool's job: it 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Payroll Dates' and 'returns' supporting details. It also distinguishes itself from the action-oriented sibling submit_enquiry by emphasizing that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid and no quote is guaranteed.
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 phrase 'Read first' is an explicit usage directive, and the description makes clear this tool should be used to understand submit_enquiry before acting. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for a zero-parameter informational tool.
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.