enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Arizona Roof Replacement 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?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does well by enumerating the exact returned attributes and making the mental model explicit: the field keys returned here are the keys for submit_enquiry. It does not discuss output shape or pagination, but for a parameterless read-only metadata query these are minor omissions.
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 concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads exactly what the tool returns, and the second adds the actionable usage instruction. Every clause contributes.
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 simple, parameterless metadata tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it specifies the scope of results, the fields available, and how the result should be used with submit_enquiry. There are no required preprocessing steps or hidden constraints to disclose.
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?
There are no parameters, so the schema fully covers input semantics; the description has no parameter behavior to add. The only extra semantic guidance, the instruction to key submit_enquiry answers by field key, relates to output usage rather than parameters.
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 identifies the tool's resource and content: every field of the Arizona Roof Replacement Cost enquiry, including key, label, type, required flag, help text, and options. It is specific about what is returned, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling enquiry_describe, so the differentiation is left largely to the name and title.
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 gives direct guidance: pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, which tells the agent why it would fetch this data. It does not formally state when to use this tool instead of enquiry_describe, but the submission-related instruction provides clear practical context.
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 covers a distinct concern: enquiry_describe explains the process, enquiry_fields provides the exact schema, and submit_enquiry performs the actual submission. There is no functional overlap between reading instructions, reading fields, and acting.
All names are snake_case and clearly tied to 'enquiry', but the word order is mixed: enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields are noun-first, while submit_enquiry is verb-first. This is readable but not a consistent verb_noun pattern.
Three tools is a well-scoped size for a single enquiry submission workflow. Each tool has a necessary role and none feel redundant.
The set covers the full required flow: understand the process, inspect the field schema, submit with consent and confirmation. No obvious dead-ends remain for the stated purpose of submitting an Arizona roof replacement enquiry.