enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Piling Costs: 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 the full burden, and it does well. It explicitly states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, and that the enquiry is free. It also discloses what the tool returns: who receives 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 every sentence adds meaningful information: what the tool does, what it does not do, and what it returns. It is concise enough for a zero-input informational tool and avoids repetition.
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 informational tool, the description is complete. It explains the purpose, the non-transactional nature, the free status, and the specific return content. An agent would have enough context to invoke and interpret the result correctly.
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 the schema coverage is 100%, so the description need not explain parameter meanings. The baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters for the description to clarify, and it appropriately focuses on behavior instead.
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 purpose: it 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does' and returns a plain-language explanation of the enquiry process. It also distinguishes itself from the siblings by being the explanatory/read-first tool, not the actual submission tool (submit_enquiry) or field-listing tool (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?
The opening 'Read first' gives a clear usage cue: this tool should be consulted before using submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly name when not to use it or directly contrast it with siblings, but the context signals that it is the informational precursor to the other tools.
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: describe explains the process, fields provides the schema, and submit performs the actual submission. There is no meaningful overlap between them.
All names share the 'enquiry' domain and are readable, but the word order is slightly inconsistent: 'enquiry_describe' and 'enquiry_fields' are noun-first, while 'submit_enquiry' is verb-first.
Three tools is a tight, well-scoped set for a simple enquiry submission flow. Each tool earns its place and there is no apparent bloat.
The surface fully covers the enquiry workflow: understanding the process, retrieving the required fields, and submitting with confirmation. No critical step is missing.