enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Penetration Testing 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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently characterizes the tool as informational ('States plainly', 'Also returns') and discloses the key behavior of the underlying enquiry flow: nothing is bought, no quote is guaranteed, and it's free. It could have explicitly stated that calling this tool itself has no side effects, but the descriptive framing makes that sufficiently clear.
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 compact and front-loaded with 'Read first.' Every sentence adds value: it states what the tool does, what submit_enquiry does not do, and what the tool returns. No filler or redundancy.
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, this description is complete. It tells the agent when to use it, what it returns, and what the underlying submit_enquiry flow involves. Nothing an agent needs to correctly select and invoke the tool 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, so schema description coverage is vacuously 100%. No parameter explanation is needed, and the description correctly focuses on behavior and return contents rather than parameters.
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: it 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does' on Penetration Testing Cost. It clearly positions this tool as a meta-description and distinguishes it from siblings like submit_enquiry and enquiry_fields.
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?
'Read first' explicitly tells the agent to consult this tool before using submit_enquiry, which is strong usage guidance. It doesn't explicitly name when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the ordering instruction combined with the behavioral explanation is 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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct role: explaining the process, listing the form fields, and submitting the enquiry with confirmation handling. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Two tools follow an enquiry_ prefix pattern while the third uses submit_enquiry, which is a slight structural deviation. However, all names clearly reference the same domain and are readable and predictable enough.
Three tools is a well-scoped set for a single-purpose enquiry submission workflow. Each tool earns its place and there is no bloat or redundancy.
The set fully covers the enquiry lifecycle: orientation, field discovery, validation, consent, and two-step confirmation submission. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated purpose.