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, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It conveys that the tool is informational, returning a description of inputs, outputs, assumptions, and tables rather than performing a calculation. Still, it does not explicitly state that no calculation is executed, whether the tool is safe/read-only, or what the response format will look like.
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 that front-loads the key value: it tells the agent exactly what information the tool provides. No filler, no repetition of the schema, and every phrase contributes to understanding.
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 metadata tool, the description is sufficient: it names the inputs, outputs, assumptions, and tables the calculator is built around. It could be more complete by clarifying that this is the documentation/specification tool rather than the execution tool, but the sibling list and the 'describe' name make that reasonably inferable.
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 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain tool parameters, and it appropriately focuses on what the described calculator itself takes and returns.
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 name and title clearly indicate this is the 'describe' counterpart to the calculator, and the description enumerates the specific content it provides: inputs with units/ranges/defaults, outputs, assumptions, and tables. It is clear about the tool's scope but does not use an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'describes,' and it does not directly contrast itself with the calculate sibling.
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 is implied: an agent would call this when it needs to understand the calculator's inputs, outputs, or underlying assumptions. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over the calculate tool or the enquiry_describe tools, leaving the routing decision to inference.
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 calculator and enquiry tool groups are cleanly separated, and each tool has a distinct role: running versus describing the calculator, and describing, field-listing, or submitting an enquiry. Even the two describe tools are unambiguous because their prefixes identify which resource they document.
Naming conventions are mixed: calculate is a bare verb, calculator_describe and enquiry_describe flip the typical verb_noun order, enquiry_fields is noun_noun, and submit_enquiry is verb_noun. The names are readable, but there is no consistent verb placement or structural pattern across the set.
Five tools is well-scoped for a small site server with two purposes: performing and explaining a calculator, and supporting an enquiry submission workflow. Each tool earns its place without redundancy or excessive surface area.
The calculator side has both execution and documentation, while the enquiry side has process documentation, field schema, and the full two-step submission flow. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the apparent domain of this server.