enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Shift Pattern Generator: 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 disclosure burden. It clearly states what happens ('starts an enquiry with human providers who quote directly'), what does not happen ('Nothing is bought, ordered or paid; no quote is guaranteed'), and what the tool returns. This is strong, non-obvious behavioral context beyond the empty schema.
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 three sentences with no filler. 'Read first' front-loads the critical instruction, followed by a clear statement of function and key caveats. Every sentence contributes distinct, useful information.
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 describe tool, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and its relationship to submit_enquiry. The caveats about purchase, quoting, and cost remove likely ambiguities. Nothing essential is missing.
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 the baseline is 4 per the rubric. There is no parameter information to provide, and the description makes no misleading parameter claims. The empty schema and empty description are consistent.
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 uses a specific verb ('States plainly') and names the exact resource ('what submit_enquiry does on Shift Pattern Generator'). It also clarifies what the tool is not about ('not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote'), distinguishing it from transaction-like sibling tools. This is unambiguous and immediately actionable.
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?
The opening 'Read first' gives a clear directive to consult this tool before acting, and the description positions it as the explanatory companion to submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the intended context is obvious for a describe-style tool.
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.