enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Arizona Solar Cost Calculator 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It adequately describes what the tool exposes (the list of fields and their metadata) and implicitly indicates a read-only listing behavior. It does not mention response format or any operational caveats, but nothing in the description suggests hidden 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?
The description is one information-dense sentence followed by a short, actionable workflow hint. Every clause adds value and the most important content is front-loaded.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description does a good job of covering what the tool returns and how to use those results. It could be slightly more explicit about the return shape, but for a parameterless listing tool the provided detail is sufficient for an agent to call and use it correctly.
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 has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing missing on the parameter side.
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 identifies a specific resource (Arizona Solar Cost Calculator enquiry fields) and enumerates the attributes returned (key, label, type, required, help text, options). It is clear enough to distinguish from submit_enquiry, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like enquiry_describe or 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 explicitly instructs the agent to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, which provides a concrete downstream usage. It does not state when to choose this tool over enquiry_describe or calculator_describe, but the intended workflow is clear.
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 explains it, enquiry_describe explains the enquiry flow, enquiry_fields lists the field schema, and submit_enquiry performs the actual submission. There is no meaningful overlap or risk of selecting the wrong tool for a task.
Tool names follow readable lowercase snake_case but mix conventions: calculate is a bare verb, submit_enquiry is verb_noun, calculator_describe and enquiry_describe are noun_verb, and enquiry_fields is noun_noun. The pattern is inconsistent but still understandable and not chaotic.
Five tools is a well-scoped size for this domain. Each tool covers a necessary aspect of the calculator and enquiry flow without redundancy or bloat.
The tool set fully covers the calculator workflow: run the calculation, understand its inputs and assumptions, learn the enquiry process, get the fields, and submit with the required two-step confirmation. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the apparent purpose.