enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Business Worth 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It makes clear this is a read-only metadata enumeration — it returns field definitions and delegates submission to submit_enquiry — which is the key behavioral trait an agent needs. It does not describe the response format, but the side-effect risk of a zero-input introspection tool is inherently low.
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 tightly packed sentences with zero waste: the first lists the complete content scope, the second explains the downstream usage contract. The purpose is front-loaded and every phrase earns its place.
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 tool with no inputs, no output schema, and simple introspection semantics, the description is nearly complete: it enumerates the full set of returned attributes and tells the agent how to connect them to the submission sibling. The only notable gap is an explicit statement of when to prefer this over the similarly named enquiry_describe.
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 takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the framework baseline of 4 applies. There is no parameter burden to compensate for; the description even adds value by explaining that the returned field keys 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 names a precise resource — 'Every field of the Business Worth Calculator enquiry' — and enumerates the exact content returned (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options), which adds real specificity beyond the name and title. The verb is only implied ('returns/lists'), and sibling differentiation is implicit via the submit_enquiry reference rather than explicit.
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 instruction 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' provides concrete guidance on how to consume the result, positioning this tool as the prerequisite for building a submission. However, it never explicitly contrasts with the sibling describe tools (calculator_describe, enquiry_describe), so an agent must infer when to choose this one over them.
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 maps cleanly to a distinct concern: running the valuation, describing calculator inputs/outputs, describing the enquiry process, listing enquiry fields, and submitting the enquiry. No two tools appear to do the same thing, and the describe tools are clearly separated by subject.
The metadata tools follow a similar 'resource_describe'/'resource_fields' pattern, but the action tools are inconsistent: 'calculate' is a bare verb while 'submit_enquiry' is verb_noun, and the describe tools are noun_verb rather than verb_noun. The names are still readable, but the conventions are mixed.
Five tools is appropriate for this narrow domain: two calculator-related, three enquiry-related, with no redundant or filler tools. It sits comfortably in a well-scoped range.
The surface covers the full workflow an agent needs: understanding the calculator, running it, understanding the enquiry, obtaining its fields, and submitting it with the required consent and confirmation. No obvious dead ends or missing lifecycle operations.