enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Tacho Calibration: 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this tool returns an explanation, contradicts invalid assumptions (nothing is bought, ordered, or paid), and specifies the informative content: who receives details, consent wording, and confirmation method. It does not explicitly state 'this tool has no side effects,' but the descriptive framing strongly implies it.
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 'Read first,' and every sentence carries distinct value: what the tool does, key disclaimers, and return contents. The title reinforces the core meaning without bloating the description.
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 informational tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete enough. It explains the purpose, scope, what is not done, and what information will be returned. An agent can decide whether to call this tool or proceed to submit_enquiry.
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 of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to add beyond what the empty schema already shows.
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 the tool's purpose: it explains what submit_enquiry does rather than performing the enquiry. It distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by framing itself as the plain-language precursor ('Read first. States plainly...'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from enquiry_fields, so some sibling ambiguity remains.
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' signals that this tool should be consulted before acting on submit_enquiry. It also clarifies what the enquiry process is not (not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but for a zero-parameter informational tool the guidance is sufficient.
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.
enquiry_describe explains the process, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the two-step submission. Each tool has a distinct purpose with no functional overlap.
Two tools use an enquiry_ prefix with a descriptor (describe, fields), while submit_enquiry reverses the order into verb_noun. The names are still readable and all reference 'enquiry', but the convention is mixed.
Three tools cover exactly what is needed for a single enquiry workflow: overview, schema, and submission. Each tool earns its place without redundancy.
The workflow is fully covered: an agent can describe the process, retrieve the required fields, and submit with consent and token confirmation. There are no obvious missing operations for the stated purpose.