enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Revalidation Tracker: 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, and it delivers: it discloses that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, no quote is guaranteed, it is free, and it describes what the tool returns (recipient details, consent wording, confirmation method). This is strong transparency for a zero-parameter informational tool.
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 roughly 50 words and every sentence earns its place: purpose, expectations (free, no purchase, no guaranteed quote), and return content. 'Read first' front-loads the key usage instruction. Mildly rambling phrasing ('States plainly what submit_enquiry does') keeps it from a 5.
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 tool, the description is complete: it defines the tool's role relative to the sibling submit_enquiry, sets user expectations, and enumerates what the tool returns. It does not mention any auth requirements or rate limits, but these are unlikely to be relevant for a descriptive read-only tool.
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 0 parameters, and the rubric sets a baseline of 4 for that case. The description adds value beyond the empty schema by explaining what informational content the tool returns, which is the relevant semantic information an agent needs.
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 clear verb and resource: it 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does' on Revalidation Tracker, distinguishing it from the action tool submit_enquiry by positioning this as the read-first explainer. The title reinforces this by framing the output as explaining what the user gets. It falls short of 5 because it never directly says 'this tool explains the enquiry process,' instead describing via reference to submit_enquiry.
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 signals it should be used before submit_enquiry, which is clear usage context. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives among the sibling tools. Usage is implied rather than fully specified.
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.
The six tools split cleanly into a decision-guide workflow (start/answer/tree) and an enquiry submission workflow (describe/fields/submit). Each tool has a distinct role: start initializes, answer advances stepwise, tree provides full context, and the enquiry tools cover explanation, schema, and submission. No two tools could plausibly be used for the same action.
The checker_ and enquiry_ prefixes create clear, predictable grouping, and every name is snake_case. The main deviation is that some names are action-oriented (start, answer, describe, submit) while tree and fields are data-oriented nouns, so the grammatical pattern is not perfectly uniform.
Six tools is well-scoped for the two distinct workflows the server exposes. There is no redundancy or padding; each tool maps to one clear capability.
For the checker, start, answer, and tree cover entry, stepwise navigation, and full reasoning respectively. For the enquiry, describe, fields, and the two-step submit flow provide the explanation, schema, validation, confirmation, and final submission needed for a complete user journey.