enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Underpinning Costs: 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 burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the nature of the underlying enquiry process and the return contents ('who receives the details, the consent wording, and how the person confirms'), but it does not explicitly state that calling enquiry_describe itself has no side effects or requires no special permissions.
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 only three sentences, front-loads the important instruction ('Read first'), and keeps the key caveats together. It is slightly redundant with the title's 'not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote' theme, but there is little wasted text inside the body.
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?
In the absence of an output schema, the description names the main return categories and clarifies what the operation is not (not a purchase or guaranteed quote). It is sufficient for an informational zero-parameter tool, though it could add an explicit statement that this tool itself does not submit anything.
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 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description adds no irrelevant parameter information.
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 uses a specific verb ('States plainly') and names the target resource ('what submit_enquiry does on Underpinning Costs'), so an agent knows this is an explanatory tool rather than the submission action. It does not explicitly differentiate from enquiry_fields, though naming submit_enquiry and saying 'Read first' gives context.
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 instruction to consult this before submit_enquiry, and the caveats ('Nothing is bought, ordered or paid; no quote is guaranteed') set expectations about when this information is relevant. It does not mention enquiry_fields or state when not to use the tool, so it is not a full routing guide.
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: enquiry_describe explains the process, enquiry_fields provides the input schema, and submit_enquiry performs the submission. There is no meaningful overlap or risk of selecting the wrong tool for a given step.
The names are readable and all use lowercase snake_case, but the pattern is slightly mixed: enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields lead with the resource, while submit_enquiry leads with the action. This is a minor deviation from a fully consistent verb_noun convention.
Three tools is well-scoped for this narrow enquiry submission flow. Each tool serves a necessary purpose: reading instructions, inspecting fields, and submitting with confirmation.
The set fully covers the described workflow: orientation, schema discovery, and two-step consented submission. No obvious dead ends or missing operations exist within the intended scope.