enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Charter vs Own 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 behavioral burden, and it covers the key behavior: the returned field metadata includes requiredness and conditional options. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or describe errors, but the read-only nature is strongly implied by describing a field dictionary rather than a mutation.
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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence enumerates exactly what the field metadata includes, and the second sentence connects the output to the submission flow.
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 fully specifies what the tool returns and how that return value should be used. For a zero-parameter metadata getter, nothing material is missing for an agent to call 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, so the schema is trivially complete and there is no parameter burden. The description adds useful guidance by explaining that the returned field keys are the same keys used when submitting answers.
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 precisely what the tool exposes: every field of the Charter vs Own enquiry with key, label, type, required flag, help text, and options. This clearly distinguishes it from submit_enquiry, which receives answers rather than returning field metadata.
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?
It gives a clear usage context: obtain the field dictionary first, then pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use it or alternative tools, but the linkage to submit_enquiry makes the intended workflow unambiguous.
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 role: calculate runs the calculator, calculator_describe documents it, enquiry_describe explains the enquiry flow, enquiry_fields defines the form schema, and submit_enquiry submits it. There is no functional overlap between any two tools.
Names are readable and follow snake_case, but the pattern is inconsistent: calculate is a bare verb, submit_enquiry is verb_noun, calculator_describe and enquiry_describe are noun_verb, and enquiry_fields is noun_noun. The mixed conventions are still understandable and semantically grouped.
With only 5 tools, the server is tightly scoped to two features: a calculator and an enquiry submission flow. Each tool serves a distinct and necessary purpose, and none feel redundant or missing at this scale.
The calculator tool is paired with a description tool, and the enquiry flow is fully covered: process explanation, field definitions, and two-step submission with consent and confirmation tokens. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated domain.