enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Term Dates API: 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 transparency burden and handles it well: it discloses that no purchase or payment occurs, no quote is guaranteed, the service is free, and the response includes recipient details, consent wording, and confirmation method. This is strong behavioral disclosure for a zero-parameter informational tool.
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 wasted words, front-loaded with the 'Read first' instruction, and then delivers the essential facts and return content. Every sentence earns its place.
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 there is no output schema, the description sufficiently summarizes what the tool returns: who receives the details, the consent wording, and how confirmation happens. For a simple explanatory tool with no parameters, this is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.
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 is empty, so there are no parameters to document; the schema coverage is vacuously 100%. The description appropriately avoids inventing parameter details, and the 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies.
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 states a specific purpose: it plainly explains what submit_enquiry does on the Term Dates API, including the free, non-guaranteed nature of the enquiry. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like submit_enquiry and the compare_* tools by positioning itself as the 'read first' explanatory tool.
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?
'Read first' is an explicit usage cue telling the agent to consume this description before submitting an enquiry. The description also clarifies what the outcome is not (not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote), but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as compare_options or enquiry_fields.
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 compare_* tools are clearly separated into criteria, options, and the full matrix, and the enquiry_* tools split process explanation, schema, and submission. There is minor overlap potential between compare_criteria and compare_table since the table also includes criteria, but descriptions make the intended use distinguishable.
compare_criteria, compare_options, and compare_table follow a consistent verb_noun pattern, while enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields put the noun first and submit_enquiry uses verb_noun again. The mixed ordering is still readable, but the naming is not fully systematic.
Six tools is well-scoped for a server covering both a comparison view and an enquiry submission workflow. Each tool supports a distinct step without redundancy or bloat.
The comparison side covers criteria, options, and the full result table, while the enquiry side covers explanation, field discovery, and two-step submission. Minor gaps exist, such as no way to check an enquiry's status or resend the confirmation email, but they are not essential to the stated workflow.