enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Compare Vet 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only metadata lookup by describing the field schema, but never explicitly says it is read-only, how data is returned, or whether authentication is required. For a zero-parameter tool this is acceptable, but the operation mode remains implicit.
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 packs all essential content into a compact enumeration, and the second sentence adds a valuable workflow pointer. 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 tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a thorough list of returned attributes and a link to submit_enquiry. It does not clarify the relationship with enquiry_describe or detail the exact output structure, but the given information is sufficient for basic invocation.
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 baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, but it adds relevant guidance by explaining that field keys should be used when submitting answers to 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 clearly identifies the resource: every field of the Compare Vet Software enquiry, and enumerates its attributes (key, label, type, required, help text, options). However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'return', so the operation is implied rather than stated directly.
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 direct usage context by instructing the agent to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, which makes the tool's role in a workflow clear. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or contrast it with siblings like enquiry_describe, so exclusions are missing.
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 are clearly separated into criteria/filters, options list, and full comparison table, while the three enquiry tools cover description, fields, and submission. There is minor potential confusion between compare_criteria and compare_table, but their descriptions make the boundary clear.
compare_criteria, compare_options, compare_table, and submit_enquiry follow a verb_noun pattern, but enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields break that pattern with a noun-first convention. The split is readable but not fully consistent.
Six tools is well-scoped for a comparison-and-enquiry workflow. Each tool serves a distinct step in browsing the comparison or submitting an enquiry, with no redundant tools.
The toolset covers the full user journey: exploring criteria, options, and the full table, then understanding, preparing, and submitting an enquiry with a two-step confirmation flow. There are no obvious missing operations or dead ends.