enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Vacant Property Security 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 transparency burden and does well: it explicitly says nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, no quote is guaranteed, the enquiry is free, and it lists what is returned including recipients, consent wording, and confirmation method. It does not explicitly state that this tool itself performs no submission, but 'Read first' and 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does' strongly imply a non-mutating description.
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?
Three short sentences front-load the key facts: read first, no purchase, no guarantee, free, and what is returned. The phrasing 'on Vacant Property Security Cost' is slightly awkward, but the structure is efficient and 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?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states purpose, non-purchase nature, free status, and the returned information. It could explicitly name the enquiry_fields sibling or state that the tool itself has no side effects, but nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide to call and interpret it.
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?
There are no parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description clarifies output content and side-effect expectations instead, adding value beyond the empty input schema.
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 defines the tool as an explanatory/meta tool that states what submit_enquiry does and returns the details of the enquiry flow. It distinguishes the enquiry from a purchase or guaranteed quote, which separates it from the action-oriented submit_enquiry sibling. It stops short of explicitly phrasing the tool's own operation as 'returns a human-readable description', but the intent is clear.
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' explicitly signals that this tool should be consulted before using submit_enquiry, providing clear context for when to call it. It does not name the enquiry_fields sibling or state when not to use it, but the 'read first' guidance and the contrast with buying/ordering cover the primary usage scenario.
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 distinct role: enquiry_describe explains the process, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry handles submission. There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between them.
Two tools share the enquiry_ prefix and are noun-first, while submit_enquiry is verb-first. The naming is readable and predictable, but the pattern is not perfectly uniform.
Three tools is exactly right for this narrow domain: describe the enquiry, define its fields, and submit it. Each tool serves a necessary and non-redundant purpose.
The tool set fully covers the enquiry workflow: orientation, field discovery, validation, and two-step submission with confirmation. There are no dead ends or missing operations for the stated purpose.