enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the CASP Checklist 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 present, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only metadata lookup by describing the fields and their attributes, and it gives useful integration context with submit_enquiry. However, it does not explicitly state side effects, response shape, or whether any state changes occur; for an introspection tool this is acceptable but not fully transparent.
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 compact sentences with no filler. The first sentence defines exactly what the tool returns, and the second explains how the returned keys should be used. Every sentence 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 no-argument introspection tool with no output schema, the description does a good job by listing the key field attributes and connecting the result to submit_enquiry. It still leaves minor ambiguity about the exact return format and whether the data is static, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.
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 the schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description adds no parameter requirements and appropriately focuses on the output content, which is sufficient for a parameterless tool.
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—the CASP Checklist enquiry fields—and enumerates exactly what information is exposed (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', but the meaning is unambiguous and the tie to submit_enquiry aids differentiation.
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 when to use the result: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key.' This provides clear practical context for invocation. It does not explicitly explain when not to use it or compare it with siblings like enquiry_describe or checker_*, but the usage direction is strong.
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 tools split cleanly into two workflows: the checker guide (start, answer, tree) and the enquiry flow (describe, fields, submit). Each tool has a clearly distinct role, and there is no meaningful overlap between them.
The prefixes 'checker_' and 'enquiry_' provide useful grouping, but the action positioning is inconsistent: some tools are verb-led ('checker_start', 'enquiry_describe') while others are noun-led ('checker_tree', 'enquiry_fields') and one reverses the pattern ('submit_enquiry'). It is still readable, but not fully predictable.
Six tools is a well-scoped set covering two focused workflows without unnecessary redundancy. Each tool earns its place, and the count feels appropriate for the server's purpose.
The checker workflow is complete: start, step through, and inspect the whole tree. The enquiry workflow is also complete: understand what it does, see the required fields, and submit with confirmation. No obvious gaps or dead ends exist for the stated purpose.