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, and it does well by disclosing what the tool returns: inputs with units/ranges/defaults, outputs, and assumptions/tables. It makes clear this is a descriptive, read-only operation, though it could be even more explicit that no calculation is performed.
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 a single sentence that efficiently covers all major content areas: inputs, outputs, assumptions, and tables. It is front-loaded and 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 no-parameter describe tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it tells the agent exactly what information will be revealed about the calculator. The presence of sibling tools does not create missing context because the describe-versus-calculate distinction is already clear from the tool name and description.
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 itself has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description mentions the calculator's inputs, but that is the subject matter being described rather than parameters of this tool, so no additional parameter guidance is needed.
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 states that this tool provides the calculator's inputs, outputs, and underlying assumptions/tables. The title and description together identify the specific resource (Settlement agreement estimator) and the descriptive verb, distinguishing it from the sibling 'calculate' tool.
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?
Usage is implied rather than explicit: the name and title suggest using this tool to understand the estimator before performing calculations, but the description does not state when to choose it over 'calculate' or other siblings. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided.
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 has a clear role: calculate runs the estimator, the describe/fields tools provide reference information, and submit_enquiry handles the enquiry flow. There is minor potential confusion between calculator_describe and enquiry_describe since both are describe-style tools, but their targets are clearly different.
Tool names mix patterns: 'calculate' and 'submit_enquiry' are verb-first, while 'calculator_describe' and 'enquiry_describe' are noun-first, and 'enquiry_fields' is noun-only. The inconsistent ordering makes the set feel less predictable than it could be.
Five tools is a well-scoped size for a site centered on a settlement calculator and an enquiry submission flow. Each tool covers a distinct need without bloat or unnecessary granularity.
The surface covers the full expected lifecycle: running the calculator, understanding its inputs/outputs, understanding what the enquiry does, retrieving the enquiry fields, and submitting the enquiry with confirmation handling. No obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated domain.