enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Workplace Recycling Rules: 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 provided, the description carries the full burden and does this well: it explicitly states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, that it is free, and what the tool returns. This gives the agent accurate expectations about side effects and limitations.
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, front-loaded with the most important instruction ('Read first'), and every sentence adds useful information. It avoids redundancy with the schema because there is no schema content to repeat.
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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description provides complete context for an agent: what the tool does, what it does not do, and what information it returns. The agent can invoke it correctly without needing additional details.
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 there is no parameter confusion to resolve. The description adds value by explaining what information the tool returns, which is more relevant than parameter semantics in this case.
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 identifies the tool as an explanatory/read-first helper that describes what submit_enquiry does, distinguishing it from the actual submission tool and sibling tools. It names the resource (Workplace Recycling Rules enquiry) and the specific outcome: an enquiry with human providers, not a purchase or guaranteed quote.
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' strongly implies the tool should be used before submit_enquiry, providing clear contextual guidance. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to understand its intended place in the workflow.
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 clearly separated by role: start begins the flow, answer progresses it, and tree provides the full decision structure. The enquiry tools are equally distinct: describe explains the process, fields defines inputs, and submit_enquiry performs the submission.
Tools mostly follow a clear prefix-based pattern: checker_* for the decision guide and enquiry_* for the enquiry flow. submit_enquiry deviates slightly from the noun-prefix style, but the naming remains predictable and readable.
Six tools is well-scoped for the two workflows the server supports. Each tool represents a necessary step or resource without redundant or superfluous entries.
The checker workflow covers start, progression, and full tree visibility, leaving no dead ends in the decision guide. The enquiry workflow covers context, field definitions, validation, consent confirmation, and final submission, making the surface complete for its stated purpose.