enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Tree Survey 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 full behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, and that the process is free. It also discloses what the tool returns: who receives the details, consent wording, and confirmation method. This is strong transparency for a read-only 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 and front-loads the key message with 'Read first.' It is concise, though slightly repetitive with phrases like 'nothing is bought, ordered or paid' and 'it is free' reinforcing the same point. Overall structure is effective for an informational tool.
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 tool with no output schema, the description does a good job explaining what it returns: who receives details, consent wording, and confirmation behavior. It lacks exact formatting or response structure, but for an informational pre-read tool this is a solid and fairly complete description.
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 schema-level documentation is vacuous. The description appropriately adds context about what the tool does and its output rather than parameter details. With no parameters to document, this is a reasonable baseline score.
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 that this tool 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does' and explains the outcome: starting an enquiry with human providers who quote directly. It distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by being a descriptive/read-first tool rather than the action tool itself, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with enquiry_fields.
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 clear timing guidance: use this tool before interacting with submit_enquiry. It also explains that this tool is informational and not the submission tool itself. However, it does not explicitly discuss when to use enquiry_fields versus this tool, leaving some ambiguity about sibling selection.
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 three tools are largely distinct: enquiry_describe explains the process, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the submission. There is minor potential confusion between describe and fields since both are preliminary 'read' steps, but the descriptions clarify their different purposes.
All tools follow a consistent 'enquiry_<verb>' pattern: describe, fields, and submit. The naming clearly groups them under a single domain and makes the action of each tool immediately recognizable.
Three tools is well-scoped for a simple enquiry submission workflow. Each tool covers a distinct stage—orientation, schema discovery, and submission—without unnecessary bloat or missing essentials.
The tool set covers the full enquiry lifecycle: understanding the process, retrieving field definitions, and submitting with confirmation. A minor gap is the lack of an explicit status-check or cancellation tool, but for this narrow domain the surface is functionally complete.