enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on SAR Builder: 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 burden of transparency. It discloses what the enquiry process is (not a purchase, free, no guaranteed quote) and what the tool returns (recipient details, consent wording, confirmation). It does not state whether the tool has side effects or requires permissions, but for a simple read/describe tool the disclosure is largely adequate.
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 'Read first.' The first sentence establishes purpose, and the second details key return content. Slightly wordy, but every clause earns its place.
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 tool with no output schema, the description provides enough: what the tool does and what information it returns. It does not detail the exact output format or exact wording of the consent text, but that may be intentionally left to the tool's response itself.
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, so there are no semantic gaps to explain. The description adds contextual meaning about the returned content, exceeding the baseline for a no-parameter tool.
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 explains what submit_enquiry does, with specific resource ('submit_enquiry on SAR Builder') and a concrete outcome (starting an enquiry, nothing is bought, etc.). It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools, but its meta/descriptive nature is evident from the 'Read first' and 'States plainly' wording.
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' gives an implicit cue to use this tool before submit_enquiry, but it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives like enquiry_fields or checker_start. The guidance is implied rather than clearly stated.
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: checker_start/answer/tree cover the decision guide's entry, traversal, and full model, while enquiry_describe/fields/submit_enquiry cover documentation, schema, and submission. No two tools appear to do the same thing.
Most tools follow a domain-prefixed pattern (checker_*, enquiry_*), which makes grouping obvious. submit_enquiry breaks the pattern by leading with the verb instead of the domain, but the naming remains understandable and mostly consistent.
Six tools is a compact, well-scoped set for a two-part workflow: the decision guide and the enquiry submission flow. Each tool has a clear purpose and none feels redundant.
The decision guide is fully covered with start, step-wise answer, and full tree access, and the enquiry flow documents the process, fields, and two-step submission. A status-check or retrieval tool for submitted enquiries would be a minor gap, but the core workflow has no dead ends.