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?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It tells the agent what content is available (inputs with units/ranges/defaults, outputs, assumptions/tables) but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, returns documentation text, or performs no calculation. Still, the name and empty schema make this low-risk.
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?
One compact noun phrase with no filler, front-loading the inputs and then listing outputs and assumptions. Every element earns its place.
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 simple description tool with no parameters and no output schema, the definition covers the key content areas. It could be more explicit that this tool returns documentation rather than performing a calculation, but nothing critical is missing at this complexity.
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 is empty with 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by stating that input units, ranges, and defaults are covered, which orients the agent to lookup purposes, even though those inputs are not this tool's own parameters.
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 identifies the artifact as covering the calculator's inputs, outputs, assumptions, and tables, and the title frames it as 'what the Statutory leave tracker computes.' This distinguishes it from the sibling calculate tool, though it lacks an explicit operational verb such as 'returns' or 'describes.'
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is stated. It is only implied that this tool should be consulted before calling calculate to understand the calculator's inputs and outputs; it does not name alternatives or exclusions.
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 targets a distinct aspect: running the calculator, describing calculator inputs/outputs, explaining the enquiry flow, listing enquiry fields, and submitting an enquiry. The only mild ambiguity is between the two '_describe' tools, but their descriptions clearly separate calculator metadata from enquiry process/schema.
The names are readable and consistently lowercase snake_case, but they mix conventions: 'calculate' and 'submit_enquiry' put the action first, while 'calculator_describe' and 'enquiry_describe' put the noun first with a verb suffix, and 'enquiry_fields' has no verb. A consistent verb_noun pattern would improve predictability.
Five tools is well-scoped for this server's two related purposes: the leave calculator and the enquiry submission flow. Each tool earns its place, including the metadata and instruction tools that prevent misuse.
The tool surface fully covers the apparent domain: calculate provides the calculation, calculator_describe explains its contract, and enquiry_fields/enquiry_describe/submit_enquiry cover the two-step consent and submission lifecycle. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations.