enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Cheap 409A 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 full burden and does a good job: it enumerates exactly what data is returned and the conditional presence of allowed options. It does not explicitly state that the call is read-only with no side effects, but the passive phrasing 'Every field of...' makes the metadata-listing nature clear.
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 carry all the essential information with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and content, and the second adds a direct usage pointer to submit_enquiry. Every word 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-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the returned field attributes and the connection to submit_enquiry. It could be slightly more explicit about the return container (list vs. object) and how this relates to enquiry_describe, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand what it will get and how to use it.
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 a vacuous 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific detail because there are none, which is appropriate; it does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.
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 states what the tool returns: every field of the Cheap 409A enquiry with its attributes (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). It distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by explicitly mentioning that answers should be passed keyed by field key, though it does not use an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get'.
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 second sentence, 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key,' implies the tool should be used before submitting an enquiry to discover valid field keys. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like enquiry_describe or the compare_* tools, leaving the routing partly to inference.
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 compare_* tools are clearly separated: criteria defines the axes, options lists the entities, and table joins them into the full matrix. The enquiry_* tools are equally distinct: describe explains the process, fields defines the schema, and submit_enquiry executes the two-step submission.
The compare_* tools follow a consistent prefix convention, and enquiry_describe/enquiry_fields follow the same noun-first pattern. submit_enquiry breaks that pattern by leading with a verb instead of the enquiry_ prefix, though it remains clear and predictable.
Six tools is well-scoped for this server's purpose: three tools cover the comparison matrix and three cover the enquiry workflow. Each tool earns its place without redundancy or bloat.
The comparison surface is complete: an agent can discover criteria, filter options, and view the full evaluation table. The enquiry workflow is also complete, covering explanation, schema discovery, validation, consent, and confirmation-token submission.