enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Canada Payroll 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 must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the returned data contents and implies a read-only discovery operation, but it does not explicitly state that invoking the tool has no side effects or describe any access constraints. This is adequate but largely implicit.
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: the first front-loads the tool's output content in a compact list, and the second provides actionable next-step guidance. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant repetition of schema information.
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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description's enumeration of returned attributes plus its routing to submit_enquiry gives an agent the core knowledge needed to call and use the tool correctly. An explicit statement of the output shape would be slightly better, but it is not essential for this simple metadata-discovery tool.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter documentation gap for the description to fill. The description adds useful forward guidance by instructing that the returned field keys should be used 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 clearly identifies the resource as the fields of the Canada Payroll Calculator enquiry and enumerates exactly what those fields contain: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', but the meaning is unambiguous and distinct from submit_enquiry.
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 tells the agent to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by the field key, effectively positioning this tool as a prerequisite discovery step for submitting an enquiry. It does not explicitly contrast with enquiry_describe or calculator_describe, but the intended usage context 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 clear single responsibility: calculate runs the calculator, calculator_describe explains it, enquiry_describe explains the submission flow, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry does the actual submission. There is no meaningful overlap between the calculator cluster and the enquiry cluster.
Names are readable and all snake_case, but the pattern is mixed: calculate and submit_enquiry are verb-first while calculator_describe, enquiry_describe, and enquiry_fields are noun-first/noun-noun. The two describe tools are consistent with each other, but the set as a whole lacks a single predictable verb_noun convention.
Five tools is well-scoped for a server that provides a payroll calculator and an enquiry submission flow. Each tool covers a distinct function, and there is no bloat or token-heavy sprawl.
The calculator surface has both run and self-description, and the enquiry surface has process description, field schema, and a two-step submit flow with explicit consent handling. No critical lifecycle gap is obvious for this narrow domain.