enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Plant Hire Rates: 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 of behavioral disclosure, and it handles this well. It states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, that the service is free, and that the tool returns who receives the details, consent wording, and confirmation process. This gives an agent a strong mental model of the side effects and output.
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 the most important guidance ('Read first'). The title is somewhat long, but it adds clarifying value by stating what the user gets and negating common assumptions about purchases and guaranteed quotes.
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 informational tool, the description is complete: it explains the purpose, the business context, what does not happen, what the user receives, and how confirmation occurs. Since no output schema exists, the explicit list of returned information covers the missing structured output.
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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than inventing parameter guidance that would be irrelevant.
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 that this tool explains what submit_enquiry does on Plant Hire Rates, distinguishing it from actually submitting an enquiry. It names the specific sibling it documents and lists the concrete information it returns, so an agent can tell it apart from 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?
The opening 'Read first' provides a clear directive to consult this tool before acting, and the description explicitly references submit_enquiry as the operation being explained. It does not spell out a full when-to-use/when-not-to-use matrix, but the intended placement relative to its sibling 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 job: describe gives the high-level explanation, fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the actual submission. There is no real overlap or risk of selecting the wrong tool for a task.
The naming is readable but mixed: enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields use a resource-first pattern, while submit_enquiry uses a verb-first pattern. A uniform verb_noun structure like describe_enquiry, list_enquiry_fields, submit_enquiry would improve consistency.
Three tools is exactly right for this narrow, well-defined purpose: understand, inspect fields, and submit. Each tool earns its place and there is no unnecessary surface area.
The set covers the full enquiry workflow: context and consent are provided by describe, input requirements come from fields, and submit handles both validation/confirmation and final submission. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated domain.