enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Structural Report Cost: 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 full burden, and it is explicit: no purchase, order, or payment occurs, no quote is guaranteed, it is free, and it discloses what the returned message contains. This gives the agent accurate expectations of side effects and output.
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?
Two compact sentences front-load the essential caveats and then state the return contents. Every clause adds information and nothing is redundant with the title or schema.
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-input, no-side-effect describe tool, the description fully covers what the tool does, what the user gets, and what information the response includes. There are no missing fields or prerequisites an agent would need.
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 and the schema already covers them completely with an empty object, so the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter explanation is needed in the description.
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 has a specific verb (states) and resource (what submit_enquiry does on Structural Report Cost), and it positions itself as the read-first explainer rather than the actual submission tool. This clearly separates it from sibling submit_enquiry.
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 instruction 'Read first' tells the agent to consult this tool before using submit_enquiry, giving a clear use context. It does not discuss enquiry_fields or state explicit exclusions, so it misses the top score.
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 in the enquiry flow: one describes the process, one returns the schema, and one submits the enquiry. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Two tools use the enquiry_ prefix while the third uses submit_enquiry, so the word order is not uniform. The names are still readable and understandable individually, but they do not follow a single verb_noun convention.
Three tools is well-scoped for a simple enquiry submission server. Each tool covers a necessary part of the flow without unnecessary surface area.
The tool set fully covers the enquiry lifecycle: reading the process, obtaining the field schema, and submitting with a two-step consent confirmation. No obvious missing operation is needed for this narrow domain.