enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the 409A Cost enquiry: key, label, type, whether required, help text and the allowed options where there are any. Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key.
| 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 behavioral burden, and it does so by enumerating every piece of metadata returned and noting that options are included only where applicable. It implies a read-only metadata lookup with no parameters, though it does not state the response's exact structure.
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?
Two sentences, no filler. The content inventory is front-loaded and the cross-tool usage note is a single short second sentence.
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 metadata tool with no output schema, this description covers the tool's purpose, returned data categories, and relationship to submit_enquiry. Nothing else is needed for correct selection and invocation.
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 input schema is complete and there is nothing meaningful to document. The description still adds the semantic distinction that field keys are the values to use when submitting answers.
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 names the specific resource (409A Cost enquiry fields) and the exact contents (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options), so an agent knows precisely what this tool exposes. The title reinforces the purpose and it is clearly distinct from submit_enquiry and enquiry_describe.
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 second sentence tells the agent how to use the result: pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. This provides practical usage context, though it does not explicitly list exclusion conditions or compare against enquiry_describe/calculator tools.
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 clearly separate concern: calculate runs the calculator, calculator_describe documents it, and the three enquiry tools split process overview, field schema, and submission. There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between them.
The names are readable but mix conventions: 'submit_enquiry' is verb-noun, 'calculate' is a bare verb, 'calculator_describe' and 'enquiry_describe' invert the verb-noun pattern, and 'enquiry_fields' is noun-noun. The shared 'describe' suffix gives some structure, so it is not chaotic.
Five tools is well-scoped for a server with two related functions: a 409A calculator and an enquiry submission flow. Each tool has a distinct job and none feel redundant or missing.
The calculator has both a run tool and a describe tool for inputs/outputs; the enquiry flow has a behavioral overview, a field listing, and a two-step submission process. For the stated purpose, the surface is complete with no obvious dead ends.