enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the AI vs Hire 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 full behavioral disclosure burden. It makes clear this is an informational enumeration of fields, not a mutation or submission, and specifies the exact structural content the agent should expect. It does not mention side-effect absence explicitly, but the wording implies a read-only lookup.
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, with the core purpose front-loaded. Each sentence earns its place, and the reference to submit_enquiry gives actionable value without redundancy.
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 tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the output fields, hints at the shape of each field description, and explains how the result feeds into the submission flow. Nothing essential for correct use 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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is empty and the description needs to add little here. It still adds relevant semantics by explaining that the returned field key should be used when constructing answers for submit_enquiry, which helps the agent understand the meaning of the output key.
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 that the tool exposes every field of the AI vs Hire enquiry and enumerates exactly what each field entry includes: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like submit_enquiry and calculator_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 description tells the agent to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, which establishes the practical workflow for using this tool's output. It does not explicitly contrast with enquiry_describe, but the usage context is clear and actionable.
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 role: calculate runs the calculator, calculator_describe documents it, enquiry_describe explains the enquiry flow, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the submission. There is little risk of selecting the wrong tool.
Tool naming mixes patterns: 'submit_enquiry' is verb_noun, 'calculate' is a bare verb, 'calculator_describe' and 'enquiry_describe' are noun_verb, and 'enquiry_fields' is a compound noun. The names are readable and the action/metadata split is recognizable, but there is no consistent convention.
Five tools is a tight, well-scoped set for a calculator-plus-enquiry server. Each tool covers a necessary part of the workflow without redundancy or bloat.
The surface covers the full intended workflow: inspect calculator assumptions, run a calculation, understand the enquiry process, get enquiry fields, and submit with explicit two-step consent. No obvious dead ends or missing operations are apparent.