enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the AI Implementation 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 burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the full output shape and the relationship to submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, but the wording strongly implies it is an introspection/retrieval tool with no side effects.
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, both information-dense and non-redundant. The first sentence front-loads exactly what the tool returns, and the second sentence gives actionable guidance for the next step. No wasted words.
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?
This is a simple, zero-parameter introspection tool with no output schema. The description fully covers the return value, including the enumerated field attributes, and explains how to use the result with submit_enquiry. Nothing essential is missing.
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 input schema is empty and there are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter documentation because none is needed; instead it explains what the output fields mean, which is the relevant semantic content for this tool.
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 the resource ('every field of the AI Implementation Cost enquiry') and the exact contents returned: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It also 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 communicates its role in the workflow: inspect the enquiry fields first, then pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. It does not explicitly contrast itself with enquiry_describe or the calculator siblings, but the workflow context is clear enough for correct selection.
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 clearly distinct function: running the model, describing the model, explaining the enquiry flow, listing enquiry fields, and submitting an enquiry. While the calculator and enquiry tools share prefixes, their purposes do not overlap.
Tool names are grouped by domain (calculator_*, enquiry_*) but the verb/noun ordering is inconsistent: calculate and submit_enquiry lead with verbs, while calculator_describe, enquiry_describe, and enquiry_fields lead with nouns. The naming is still readable and predictable enough.
Five tools are well-scoped for a site offering a cost calculator and an enquiry submission flow. Each tool earns its place and there is no redundancy.
The tool surface fully covers the stated purpose: describe the calculator, run it, describe the enquiry flow, inspect the fields, and submit with a two-step consent/confirmation process. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for this domain.