enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Waste Carrier 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 of explaining behavior. It transparently covers key outcomes: no purchase, no guaranteed quote, free, and what information is returned. It also mentions that it returns who receives details, consent wording, and confirmation method, which is valuable beyond the basic tool name.
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 concise, using three sentences to convey essential information. It front-loads the 'Read first' instruction and packs useful details efficiently. The slight overlap with the title is minor and does not reduce clarity.
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 the simple 0-parameter nature of the tool and lack of output schema, the description gives a solid overview of what the tool returns: an explanation of submit_enquiry, its consequences, and the confirmation flow. It could be more explicit about the tool being read-only/informational, but the overall context suffices.
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 input schema is empty, so parameter semantics are not applicable. The baseline of 4 is appropriate since there is no parameter information to provide or clarify.
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 describes what submit_enquiry does, using phrases like 'States plainly' and 'Read first.' It distinguishes itself from the actual submit_enquiry operation by explaining that it provides information rather than performing the enquiry. However, it does not explicitly name the tool as a 'describe' action, relying on the name and 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' provides clear placement in the workflow, signaling that this tool should be used before undertaking an enquiry. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the context and emphasis on reading before acting give enough direction for an agent.
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 checker tools are mostly distinct: start initializes, answer advances the flow, and tree provides the full graph for end-to-end reasoning. The enquiry tools are clearly separated by purpose, though checker_answer and checker_tree both deal with question/option data and could be confused at first glance.
There is a consistent 'checker_' and 'enquiry_' prefix, but the second half mixes verbs and nouns: checker_start/checker_answer are actions, checker_tree/enquiry_fields are resources, and submit_enquiry is a verb-noun pair. The convention is readable but not fully uniform.
Six tools is well-scoped for a server covering two related workflows: the checker Q&A flow and the enquiry submission flow. Each tool earns its place and the set is neither thin nor bloated.
The checker flow is complete with start, step-by-step traversal, and full tree access, while the enquiry flow covers instructions, schema discovery, and a confirmation-gated submission process. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated domain.