enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Smoke Control Checker: 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 of behavioral disclosure. It fully discloses that the tool is non-transactional, free, not a guarantee, and that it returns concrete details such as who receives the enquiry, consent wording, and confirmation method.
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, front-loaded with the most important instruction ('Read first'), and every sentence adds meaningful information. The title also reinforces the core distinction from transaction-oriented sibling tools 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?
Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete: it states what the tool does, what it does not do, and what information it returns. No critical context 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 there is nothing for the description to explain. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the tool's output rather than parameters.
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 a specific purpose: it explains what submit_enquiry does on Smoke Control Checker, including that it starts an enquiry with human providers. It also distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by explicitly saying nothing is bought, ordered, or paid and that no quote is guaranteed.
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' is a clear usage signal: use this tool before acting with submit_enquiry. The description also clarifies what the tool is not (a purchase or guaranteed quote), which helps an agent avoid invoking the wrong sibling.
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 tool set separates cleanly into a decision-guide workflow (checker_start, checker_answer) and an enquiry workflow (enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields, submit_enquiry). Each tool has a single clear job, and the descriptions resolve any possible confusion between explaining the enquiry and providing its field schema.
All names are lowercase snake_case and use domain prefixes such as checker_ and enquiry_, which keeps them readable. The action style is inconsistent, though: checker_start and enquiry_describe put the verb last, submit_enquiry puts it first, and enquiry_fields is a noun phrase rather than an action.
The set is well-scoped for its stated purpose: two tools cover the checker decision tree and three cover the enquiry submission flow. Each tool earns its place, and the count is comfortably within the ideal range.
The checker workflow is covered end to end from the first question through to a final verdict, and the enquiry workflow is covered from explanation and field discovery through the two-step consent-based submission. There are no obvious missing operations that would leave an agent in a dead end.