enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Self Build Insurance Compare: 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 behavioral burden. It clearly frames the tool as informational by saying it 'states' and 'returns' details, and it spells out that no purchase, payment, or guaranteed quote is involved. It does not explicitly say this tool itself is side-effect free, but the zero-parameter schema and descriptive language make that clear.
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: 'Read first' immediately signals priority, followed by a plain explanation, key exclusions, and return contents. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.
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, descriptive tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns, what it is about, and the key facts an agent needs before invoking submit_enquiry. Nothing critical is missing for correct use.
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 is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description appropriately adds no parameter filler; with zero parameters, the baseline of 4 applies and the description meets it.
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 names a specific action ('states plainly what submit_enquiry does') and a specific resource ('Self Build Insurance Compare'), distinguishing it from actual submission and comparison tools. The title and content reinforce that this is an explanatory/descriptive tool, not a purchase or quote action.
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 a clear usage directive implying this should be consulted before submit_enquiry. It also clarifies what the related submit_enquiry flow does and does not do, which helps an agent decide when this explanatory tool is relevant, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it.
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 purpose: compare_criteria, compare_options, and compare_table cover different aspects of the comparison data, while enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields, and submit_enquiry form a clear enquiry submission flow. There is no meaningful overlap between any of the tools.
The compare_* tools follow a consistent prefix pattern, but the enquiry tools mix conventions: enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields are noun-first while submit_enquiry is verb-first. The names are still readable and predictable enough, but the pattern is not uniform.
Six tools is well-scoped for a comparison and enquiry server. Each tool earns its place and there is no obvious redundancy or missing trivial utility.
The tool set covers the full workflow: viewing comparison criteria, options, and the full table, plus describing, inspecting, and submitting an enquiry. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated domain.