enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Venue Capacity Check: 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 full burden and does so well. It states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, that it is free, and that it returns specific information including recipient details, consent wording, and confirmation method. This gives the agent a clear behavioral and output contract.
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, front-loaded with the key instruction 'Read first,' and every sentence adds essential information. There is no repetition of schema content or filler, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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 are no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does, what it returns, and how it relates to submit_enquiry. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and understand the result.
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 the schema is empty, so parameter semantics are not needed. With 0 params, the baseline is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and output instead of parameter details.
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') and resource ('what submit_enquiry does'), and clearly distinguishes this tool from submit_enquiry by presenting it as the read-first overview. The title reinforces the non-purchase, non-guaranteed nature, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.
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' explicitly signals when to use the tool: before submit_enquiry. It also clarifies the expected outcome and the fact that no transaction occurs, which helps an agent decide whether this is the right pre-submission step. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling context makes the intended placement clear.
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: checker_start/answer/tree handle different aspects of the decision guide, and enquiry_describe/fields/submit handle separate parts of the enquiry flow. There is no meaningful overlap or risk of selecting the wrong tool for the intended action.
Most tools follow a clear snake_case pattern with domain prefixes like checker_ and enquiry_. The main deviation is submit_enquiry reversing the prefix pattern, and the second word is sometimes a noun and sometimes a verb, but the naming remains readable and predictable overall.
Six tools is well-scoped for this server's purpose: three for the decision guide and three for the enquiry submission flow. Every tool has a clear purpose and none feel redundant.
The tool set covers the full intended user journey: navigating the checker from start through answers to verdict, obtaining the full question tree for reasoning, understanding the enquiry process, retrieving field schemas, and submitting an enquiry with confirmation. No critical step is missing.