enquiry_describeRead first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Settlement Calculator: 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly indicates the tool is descriptive and read-only ('States plainly', 'returns...'), and it discloses exactly what information is returned: recipients, consent wording, and confirmation method. It also removes risk by clarifying that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid.
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 front-loaded with 'Read first' and every sentence adds meaningful information: action, exclusions, cost, guarantee, and return contents. It is compact yet fully informative.
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 parameterless descriptive tool with no output schema, the description covers what the user receives and clarifies the boundary with submit_enquiry. It could be slightly more explicit about the exact format of the returned text, but it is otherwise complete.
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 schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to add about parameter behavior, and it does not mislead.
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 is specific: 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Settlement Calculator' uses a distinct verb and names its resource. It clearly separates itself from submit_enquiry by being a descriptive explanation rather than the actual action, and from calculator_describe by topic.
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?
'Read first' is a direct instruction to invoke this tool before using submit_enquiry, and the body explains the context in which it applies. It does not explicitly name exclusions or alternatives, but the usage intent is clear.
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.