enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Crypto AML Policy 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 burden of explaining behavior. It does so by enumerating the field attributes returned and the relationship to submit_enquiry. It does not describe output shape or side effects, but this is a read-only metadata listing with no parameters.
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 contain all necessary information with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded and the submit_enquiry linkage is a natural, efficient addition.
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 zero-parameter metadata tool, the description is nearly complete: it tells the agent what fields will be described and how they relate to submission. It could mention the exact output format or reference enquiry_describe, but those are minor gaps given the simplicity of the 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, so parameter semantics are not a real concern. The baseline of 4 is appropriate because there is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs.
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 as exposing all fields of the Crypto AML Policy enquiry, listing the exact metadata included: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It differentiates itself from submit_enquiry by stating that answers should be passed to that tool keyed by field key.
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 a clear usage context by telling the agent to use the returned field keys when passing answers to submit_enquiry. However, it does not mention enquiry_describe or explicitly state when not to use this tool.
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 role: describing the process, providing the field schema, and submitting the enquiry. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Two tools share the 'enquiry_' prefix pattern, while 'submit_enquiry' follows a verb-first convention. This is a minor inconsistency but still readable and predictable overall.
Three tools is a well-scoped set for a narrowly defined enquiry submission flow. Each tool serves a necessary step in the workflow without bloat.
The set covers the full lifecycle for this domain: describing the process, retrieving the required fields, and submitting with a two-step confirmation. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations.