enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Business Value Now 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains what the tool returns (field metadata) and that 'allowed options' appear only where applicable. It also discloses the relationship to submit_enquiry, which is helpful. It doesn't explicitly state read-only behavior, but the descriptive nature of the content strongly implies a safe lookup 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?
The description is two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence enumerates the exact content returned, and the second provides a practical link to submit_enquiry. It is well-structured and focused.
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?
Despite having no output schema, the description sufficiently specifies the return content and its purpose. It names all field attributes, mentions conditional options, and explains how to use the result (keys for submit_enquiry). Given the tool takes no parameters, the description is complete for an agent to invoke 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 tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so the description need not explain parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 params is 4. The description's mention of 'field key' indirectly clarifies the meaning of a term relevant to the submit_enquiry tool, but no parameter-specific detail is required here.
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 purpose: it provides every field of the Business Value Now enquiry, including key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. The title reinforces this as 'the questions the enquiry asks'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling enquiry_describe or other tools, and it lacks a direct verb like 'lists' or 'returns'.
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 gives actionable context: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key.' This tells the agent how to use the retrieved field keys, implying the tool is a prerequisite for submission. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like enquiry_describe, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions.
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.
The six tools cleanly split into two domains: the checker_* tools handle the decision guide lifecycle (start, progress, full tree) and the enquiry_* tools handle the enquiry form (description, fields, submission). Each tool has a specific, non-overlapping role, and the submit_enquiry tool's two-step confirmation is clearly documented.
The tool names follow a clear prefix convention: checker_* for the decision guide and enquiry_* for the enquiry workflow. There is slight inconsistency in whether the prefix is followed by a noun or verb (e.g., checker_start vs checker_tree), but the overall pattern is predictable and readable.
With six tools, the server is well-scoped. Each tool serves a distinct purpose in one of the two workflows, and there are no redundant or filler tools.
The checker workflow is complete with start, step-by-step progression, and a full tree for end-to-end reasoning. The enquiry workflow is also complete, covering descriptive context, field schema, and a two-step submission process with explicit consent handling.