enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Conveyancing Fees Australia 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 carries the full behavioral burden. It describes what the tool returns and the structure of that data, and it clearly indicates a read-only discovery operation. However, it does not mention response format, error behavior, or that the tool takes no arguments, leaving some behavior 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 long, front-loaded with the exact contents of the response, and ends with a useful routing hint for submit_enquiry. Every sentence earns its place, and the title reinforces the purpose without redundancy.
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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context: what the tool returns, the field attributes, and how to use the result with submit_enquiry. It could mention the absence of required arguments or clarify the difference from enquiry_describe, but these are minor gaps for such a simple metadata tool.
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 already documents that with an empty properties object. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds no contradictory or missing parameter information. It appropriately focuses on the response contents instead.
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 tool's resource: every field of the Conveyancing Fees Australia enquiry, including key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. It distinguishes itself from the sibling submit_enquiry by explaining that answers should be passed to that tool keyed by these field keys, though it does not explicitly contrast 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?
The description gives practical usage context by stating that answers should be passed to submit_enquiry using the field keys returned here. This implies the tool should be used to discover the enquiry schema before submission, though it does not explicitly state when to choose this over enquiry_describe.
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 responsibility: one explains the process, one provides the field schema, and one performs the submission. There is no meaningful overlap or boundary ambiguity.
The names are readable and share the 'enquiry' root, but the pattern is inconsistent: enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields use a noun-first structure while submit_enquiry uses verb-first. This creates minor style inconsistency without losing meaning.
Three tools is well-scoped for a single enquiry submission workflow. It avoids bloat while providing the necessary orientation, schema, and submission functions.
The set fully covers the enquiry lifecycle: describing the process, obtaining valid fields, and submitting with consent and confirmation. No obvious gap exists for the stated purpose.