enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Leave Tracker: 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 meets it well. It explicitly states what does NOT happen ('nothing is bought, ordered or paid'), clarifies cost ('it is free'), and reveals the return contents (who receives details, consent wording, confirmation method). This is strong behavioral disclosure.
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 three focused sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the 'Read first' instruction, then quickly covers what the tool does, what it does not do, and what it returns. Every sentence 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?
Given the tool's low complexity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description provides enough context: it explains its purpose, its subject (submit_enquiry), its safety profile ('free', 'nothing is bought'), and the categories of information returned. It could be slightly more explicit about its own return format, but this is not a significant gap.
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 an empty input schema, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on behavior and return value instead.
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 action ('states plainly what submit_enquiry does') and names the exact resource and scope. It clearly distinguishes this from the related 'submit_enquiry' tool by explaining this is the read-first explanation, not the submission action itself.
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' gives clear contextual guidance to use this tool before taking action. It also identifies the target behavior (submit_enquiry) and what the tool will clarify. However, it does not explicitly discuss alternatives like enquiry_fields or when not to use this tool.
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.