calculator_describeThe inputs this calculator takes (with units, ranges and defaults), the outputs it returns, and the assumptions and tables behind it.
| 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 discloses the content the tool provides: input specifications, outputs, assumptions, and tables. The read-only, parameterless nature is evident from the description and empty schema, and no side effects are suggested.
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 a single concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core idea and every clause adds meaningful content about the tool's scope.
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 no-parameter describe tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names all major content categories an agent would need to know. A small gap is the lack of explicit connection to the 'calculate' sibling, but this is not critical.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately explains what the tool covers instead of describing parameters, which is sufficient given the empty input schema.
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 the tool describes the calculator's inputs (with units, ranges, defaults), outputs, and underlying assumptions/tables. It distinguishes itself from 'calculate' by focusing on description rather than computation, though it lacks an explicit imperative verb like 'returns' or 'describes'.
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?
Usage context is implied by the tool name and description: use it to understand what the Render cost calculator does before calling 'calculate'. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the sibling tools as alternatives.
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: running the calculator, describing the calculator, describing the enquiry flow, listing enquiry fields, and submitting an enquiry. The descriptions reinforce these boundaries, so an agent should not confuse one tool with another.
Names are readable and use a shared domain vocabulary, but the patterns are mixed: 'calculate' is a bare verb, 'calculator_describe' and 'enquiry_describe' are noun-verb, while 'submit_enquiry' is verb-noun. This is inconsistent but still predictable enough to navigate.
Five tools is well-scoped for a small calculator/enquiry server. Each tool covers a necessary step in the workflow—calculation, description, field lookup, and submission—without unnecessary duplication or bloat.
The tool set fully covers the apparent domain: it lets agents understand the calculator, run it, understand the enquiry process, retrieve the required fields, and submit an enquiry with consent and confirmation. There are no obvious dead ends or missing lifecycle steps.