enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the California 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains what information is returned: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It does not explicitly say the operation is read-only, but the content strongly implies a metadata retrieval 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 exactly what the agent will receive, and the second sentence gives direct actionable guidance for the related submission tool.
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 metadata listing tool, the description is sufficiently complete. It identifies the domain, the exact fields returned, and how the output should be used with submit_enquiry. It could mention the output format or whether the result is a list, but that is a minor gap.
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 there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing to document and the description appropriately avoids inventing unnecessary parameter details.
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 the tool returns every field of the California Solar Cost Calculator enquiry along with their metadata, which names a clear resource and distinguishes it from the sibling tools like submit_enquiry and calculate. It does not use a strong verb like 'list' or 'get', but the meaning is unambiguous.
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 clear context: use this tool to discover enquiry fields and pass answers keyed by field key to submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly exclude other tools or state when to prefer enquiry_describe, but the relationship to submit_enquiry is clearly implied.
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 distinct focus: calculate runs the cost model, calculator_describe explains the model, enquiry_describe explains the submission process, enquiry_fields defines the input schema, and submit_enquiry completes the workflow. There is no functional overlap despite some similar naming.
The names mix standalone verbs (calculate, submit_enquiry), noun_verb descriptors (calculator_describe, enquiry_describe), and a noun_noun data tool (enquiry_fields). This is readable but does not follow a consistent verb_noun pattern.
Five tools is well-scoped for a calculator-plus-enquiry server: two calculator tools, two enquiry information tools, and one submission action. Each tool earns its place and the count stays within the ideal range.
The surface covers the full flow: understand the calculator, run it, understand the enquiry, get its fields, and submit with consent confirmation. No critical lifecycle gap exists for the stated purpose.