enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on CSV Convert: 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 of disclosure. It explicitly states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, and that the process is free, while also describing the return content (recipients, consent wording, confirmation). This gives the agent a clear model of side effects and expectations with no contradiction.
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 are front-loaded with 'Read first' and every sentence adds distinct value: purpose, constraints, and return content. There is no repetition or filler, making it an efficient and well-structured description.
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, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides the essential context: what the tool does, what it guarantees not to do, and the specific information it returns. It would be slightly stronger with an explicit note on the output format, but it is sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to use 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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is empty and the baseline is 4. There is nothing to add about parameter meaning; the description appropriately focuses on the tool's output and the context of submit_enquiry.
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 a specific purpose: 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does on CSV Convert', clearly a verb+resource action. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling submit_enquiry by being the 'read first' explainer, and the title reinforces that it describes an enquiry with a human, 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 description opens with 'Read first', giving a clear directive to use this tool before submit_enquiry, and explains what the tool will tell the agent. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare it to the checker_* sibling tools, so it falls short of full alternative guidance.
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 cleanly separated into start, step-by-step answer, and full tree view, while the enquiry_* tools cover description, schema, and submission. No two tools appear to do the same thing.
The tools use useful domain prefixes (checker_ and enquiry_), but the word order is inconsistent: checker_answer, checker_start, and enquiry_describe are object+verb, while submit_enquiry is verb+object, and checker_tree and enquiry_fields are object+noun. The convention is readable but not uniform.
Six tools is well-scoped for the server's purpose: three support the decision guide flow and three support the enquiry submission flow. Each tool has a clear role and none feel redundant.
The tool surface fully covers the decision guide lifecycle (start, answer, full tree) and the enquiry lifecycle (describe, fields, submit with two-step confirmation). No obvious operations are missing for the stated domain.