enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Colorado Roof Replacement Cost 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 must carry the behavioral burden; it does by framing the tool as a metadata lookup and by assigning the actual submission action to submit_enquiry. It enumerates the returned contents, but it does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior or error/auth conditions, which would be the main remaining gap.
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 front-loads the complete list of returned attributes and the second provides necessary integration guidance. 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 simple metadata-returning tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description enumerates the full content of the response and its relationship to submit_enquiry. It does not describe the exact response envelope, but the listed attributes are enough for an agent to consume the tool 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 takes no parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter ambiguity. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description adds useful semantic context by mentioning that field keys are the contract for 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 states exactly what the tool exposes: each enquiry field's key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. It is distinguishable from the siblings by naming the field-metadata scope, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'returns' and does not contrast itself with 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?
It gives clear downstream context by telling the agent to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, which links this tool's output to the correct consumer. It does not state explicit when-not-to-use conditions or describe enquiry_describe's role, so it stops short of a full alternative-selection guide.
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 distinct role: enquiry_describe explains the process, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the submission. There is no functional overlap or ambiguity between them.
All names use snake_case and share the 'enquiry' theme, but the pattern is not uniform: enquiry_describe is noun-verb, enquiry_fields is noun-noun, and submit_enquiry is verb-noun. This is readable but inconsistent.
Three tools exactly cover the simple enquiry workflow: explain, describe fields, and submit. Each tool serves a clear purpose with no redundancy or bloat.
The tools cover the full enquiry lifecycle from initial explanation through schema discovery to validated two-step consent submission. No obvious dead ends or missing operations exist for the stated domain.