enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Compare HVAC Software 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the content of the response but does not explicitly disclose that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention any authentication, rate-limit, or response-format behavior. The instruction to pass values to submit_enquiry implies a non-mutating lookup, but the transparency is not complete.
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 unnecessary words. It front-loads the core 'every field of the enquiry' and then enumerates the attributes, followed by a single practical usage sentence. Every sentence 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?
With no output schema, the description does a good job of specifying what the response contains: keys, labels, types, required flags, help text, and options. It also explains how to use the results. It stops short of describing the exact response format or any error conditions, but for a parameterless introspection tool it is largely complete.
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 the schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful context by explaining that field keys are used to key answers to submit_enquiry, which clarifies the meaning of the returned key attribute even though no parameters exist.
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: every field of the Compare HVAC Software enquiry, including key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. This is a specific resource with a clear scope, and it is easily distinguished from siblings like compare_criteria or compare_table. The mention of submit_enquiry also anchors its role in the workflow.
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 description gives clear practical guidance: use the returned field keys to key answers when calling submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this one, but the purpose of inspecting the enquiry fields is self-evident and the workflow hint is valuable.
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 three compare_* tools cleanly separate criteria, options, and the full table, while the three enquiry_* tools separate explanation, field schemas, and submission. No two tools appear to serve the same purpose.
All names use lowercase snake_case, and the compare_* and enquiry_* prefixes create clear grouping. Slight inconsistency exists because compare_* uses verb_noun while enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields put the noun first, but this is readable and predictable.
Six tools is well-scoped for this server: three cover the comparison surface and three cover the enquiry workflow. Each tool has a distinct role without unnecessary bloat.
The comparison side fully covers criteria, options, and the full table, while the enquiry side covers explanation, fields, and the two-step submission flow. There are no obvious missing operations for the stated domain.