enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Crypto Licence Costs 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 burden of explaining behavior. It does disclose the content and structure of the returned field definitions, including key, label, type, required, help text, and options. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only metadata operation or describe the overall return format, though these are reasonably inferable.
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 convey the full purpose, the data content, and the connection to submit_enquiry with no wasted words. The most important information is front-loaded.
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 inspection tool, the description adequately covers what the agent needs: what fields exist, what attributes are included, and how to use the results with a sibling tool. It could mention the output format, but the lack of parameters and the simple metadata nature make the description reasonably 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, so there is no parameter detail for the description to add. The mention of field keys as the required keying mechanism for submit_enquiry is useful related context and aligns with the empty schema.
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 states that the tool provides every field of the Crypto Licence Costs enquiry, enumerating the kinds of data included. It stops short of an explicit verb like 'lists' or 'returns', but the meaning is unambiguous and the mention of submit_enquiry helps distinguish it from related tools.
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 implies that this tool should be used to discover the enquiry fields before submitting answers, and explicitly tells the agent to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. It does not name alternatives like enquiry_describe, but the usage context is clear enough for correct selection.
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 targets a distinct concern: running the calculator, describing the calculator, explaining the enquiry flow, listing enquiry fields, and submitting an enquiry. The two describe tools are clearly separated by domain prefix, so an agent should not confuse them.
The names are readable and grouped by area, but the convention is mixed: 'calculate' is a bare verb, 'calculator_describe' and 'enquiry_describe' use noun_describe, 'enquiry_fields' is noun_noun, and 'submit_enquiry' is verb_noun. There is no single consistent verb_noun pattern.
Five tools is well-scoped for a focused calculator-plus-enquiry server. Each tool earns its place and there is no redundant surface area.
The surface covers both core flows completely: calculating costs (including documenting inputs/defaults) and submitting an enquiry (describing the process, providing fields, and handling the two-step confirmation). No obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated purpose.