enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Private Surgery 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?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It clearly indicates this tool 'states' and 'returns' information, implying a read-only, side-effect-free operation, and it adds useful context about what submit_enquiry does (free, no purchase, no guaranteed quote). It stops short of an explicit 'this tool does not actually submit', but the framing is strong and unambiguous.
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 three tight sentences with no filler, and the most important directive ('Read first') is front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place by either explaining the tool's function, clarifying what it is not, or listing what it returns.
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?
This is a zero-parameter, no-output-schema informational tool, and the description names the concrete outputs you can expect: who receives the details, the consent wording, and how the person confirms. That is sufficient for an agent to decide whether to call this before submit_enquiry and to know what it will get back.
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 properties, and the description correctly adds no parameter documentation because none exists. With 0 parameters, the baseline of 4 applies and the description fully satisfies this dimension.
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 uses a specific verb ('states plainly') and names the exact resource it describes ('submit_enquiry'), so an agent knows this is a reference/explanation tool rather than the submission tool itself. The title also frames it as a non-action output ('not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote'), clearly distinguishing it from its siblings.
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' is an explicit usage directive telling the agent to invoke this before acting, and the description frames itself as a pre-submission reference for submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly discuss when to use enquiry_fields instead, but the core choice between describing and submitting 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: enquiry_describe explains the process, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the actual submission. There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between them.
All names are snake_case and clearly related to enquiries, but the pattern is mixed: enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields use an 'enquiry_' prefix while submit_enquiry uses an '_enquiry' suffix. The names are readable and understandable, but the verb/noun order is not consistent across the set.
Three tools is well-scoped for the narrow purpose of submitting an enquiry: one to orient the agent, one to define the fields, and one to submit with confirmation handling. Each tool earns its place without redundancy or bloat.
The tool surface covers the full enquiry workflow: understanding the process, retrieving the required fields, validating and confirming submission, and handling consent. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated purpose.