enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Citizenship Descent Checker 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?
There are no annotations, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It implicitly frames the tool as a read-only metadata lookup with no parameters, and it directs submission activity to submit_enquiry, which avoids implying mutation. However, it never explicitly says there are no side effects or what the response container looks like, and no output schema compensates for that.
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 compact, front-loaded sentences cover what the tool returns and how to consume it. There is no redundant phrasing or unnecessary context, making it easy for an agent to scan and understand.
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 simple no-parameter metadata lookup, the description supplies the essential information: the set of field attributes and the relationship to submit_enquiry via field keys. It does not specify the exact JSON shape, but the attribute enumeration is a reasonable stand-in given the absence of an output schema.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the schema already exhaustively documents the input; the baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4. No parameter explanation is needed, and the description adds no irrelevant parameter detail.
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 Citizenship Descent Checker enquiry—and spells out the exact field attributes returned: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It is unambiguously about retrieving question metadata, though it relies on an implied verb and does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling enquiry_describe.
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 gives practical workflow guidance: use the returned field keys to pass answers to submit_enquiry. This establishes when the tool is relevant and connects it to a sibling, but it does not explicitly state exclusions or when to prefer another tool instead.
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 clearly distinct role: checker_start and checker_answer handle interactive progression, checker_tree provides the full decision map for offline reasoning, and the enquiry_* tools separate explanation, schema, and submission. Even where data overlaps, the descriptions clearly indicate which tool to use for which purpose.
The checker_ and enquiry_ prefixes create a useful grouping pattern, and all names are lowercase snake_case. The only minor inconsistency is submit_enquiry using verb-first naming while the other enquiry tools use the enquiry_ prefix, but this does not create real confusion.
Six tools is a well-scoped size for this server: three cover the decision guide interaction and three cover the enquiry flow. Each tool earns its place with no redundant or trivial additions.
The decision guide is fully covered by start, answer, and tree, allowing both step-by-step and end-to-end reasoning. The enquiry flow is also complete with explainer, field schema, and a two-step consent-based submission process, leaving no obvious dead ends.