calculator_describeThe inputs this calculator takes (with units, ranges and defaults), the outputs it returns, and the assumptions and tables behind it.
| 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. It indicates that the tool surfaces inputs, outputs, and assumptions, which implies a read-only informational call, but it does not explicitly state that no calculation is executed or describe response behavior.
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 single clause is compact and packs useful scope: units, ranges, defaults, outputs, assumptions, and tables. It is slightly elliptical because it lacks an explicit verb like 'describes,' but it contains no filler.
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 describe tool, the definition covers the essential content areas and implies that the return value is descriptive. It would be stronger with an explicit note that no calculation is performed or a hint of the output structure, but nothing critical is missing.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. The description's reference to inputs refers to the calculator's conceptual fields, not API parameters, which is appropriate for a describe-style tool.
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 states the resource (commercial mortgage calculator) and the three content areas: inputs with units/ranges/defaults, outputs, and assumptions/tables. It is clear about what the tool conveys, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like calculate.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of siblings such as calculate or enquiry_describe. The only hint is the 'describe' in the name, which requires the agent to infer when this documentation tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.