enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Accounting Firm Value 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates that this is an informational field-listing tool and points submission activity to submit_enquiry, but it does not explicitly confirm that this tool is read-only, has no side effects, or has no auth/operational constraints.
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 two tight sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the main purpose and output contents, and the second immediately connects the result to the relevant sibling tool.
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 zero-parameter metadata tool with no output schema, the description explains what is returned and how to use the results. It stops short of specifying the exact output shape, such as whether the result is an array of objects, but the listed attributes are sufficient for correct use.
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 there is no parameter ambiguity. The description adds meaningful context by telling the agent that the field keys returned here are the exact keys to use when calling submit_enquiry.
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 clearly that the tool returns every field of the Accounting Firm Value enquiry, including key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. It is specific about the resource and content, and it distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by noting that answers should be passed there keyed by field key.
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 description provides clear usage context: obtain the field keys from this tool, then pass answers to submit_enquiry using those keys. It does not explicitly contrast this with tools like enquiry_describe or the compare tools, so alternative routing is left somewhat implicit.
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.
The three compare_* tools cleanly separate criteria, options, and the full table, while the enquiry_* tools distinguish describing the process, listing fields, and submitting. There is no meaningful functional overlap between any two tools.
compare_criteria, compare_options, and compare_table follow a consistent verb_noun pattern, and enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields share an enquiry_ prefix. submit_enquiry breaks that prefix pattern slightly, but the names remain clear and predictable overall.
Six tools cover two well-defined workflows without redundancy: comparison of report types and submission of an enquiry. Each tool has a distinct, necessary role.
The comparison tools provide the criteria schema, available options, and full value matrix, covering the comparison workflow end-to-end. The enquiry tools explain the process, provide the field schema, and support the two-step consent/confirmation submission, leaving no obvious dead ends.