enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Compare Answering 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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned data structure, which is valuable, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation with no side effects or mention any auth or rate-limit considerations. For a simple metadata-listing 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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the returned content, and the second immediately explains how the output should be used, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
Given the tool takes no parameters and has no output schema, the description provides a thorough account of what the agent will receive and how to use it with submit_enquiry. There is no missing information that an agent would need to invoke or interpret this 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 has zero parameters, so the schema covers everything trivially. The description adds relevant conceptual context by explaining that the field keys returned here are the same keys used when calling submit_enquiry, which helps the agent connect the output to the next step.
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—fields of the Compare Answering enquiry—and enumerates what each entry contains: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It lacks an explicit verb like 'lists' or 'returns', but the meaning is unambiguous and the reference to submit_enquiry helps position it among siblings.
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 concrete usage context: answers passed to submit_enquiry must be keyed by field key, implying this tool should be consulted before submission. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the contextual guidance is clear.
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 purpose: compare_criteria, compare_options, and compare_table target different aspects of the comparison data, while enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields, and submit_enquiry each handle a separate step of the enquiry workflow. No two tools overlap in a way that would cause misselection.
The naming mostly follows a consistent domain-prefix pattern: compare_* for the comparison data and enquiry_* for the enquiry flow. The outlier is submit_enquiry, which inverts the pattern to verb_noun instead of noun_prefix_noun, creating a minor deviation.
Six tools is well-scoped for this server's purpose: three tools cover the comparison aspect and three cover the enquiry process. Each tool earns its place, and the count feels neither sparse nor bloated.
The tool set provides complete coverage for the domain: comparison data (criteria, options, full table) and the full enquiry lifecycle (description, form fields, two-step submission). There are no obvious missing operations that would cause agent failures.