enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Cyprus Company Cost 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 full behavioral burden, and it does so reasonably well: it specifies the exact field metadata returned and notes that allowed options are included only where they exist. It does not discuss authentication or side effects, but for a zero-parameter metadata read operation those risks are low.
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 tight sentences: the first enumerates the returned content and the second gives the usage instruction. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.
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 parameterless metadata tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the specific enquiry, enumerates the field metadata, and explains how the output should be used. No critical information is missing.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful semantic meaning by explaining that the returned field keys are designed to be used as the keying convention for 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 states that the tool exposes every field of the Cyprus Company Cost enquiry and enumerates exactly what is included: key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. It identifies the resource precisely, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling enquiry_describe, so it stops short of a 5.
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 second sentence gives a clear downstream instruction: pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. This tells the agent why the tool exists and how its output should be used, but it does not state when to prefer this tool over enquiry_describe or when not to use it.
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: one explains the process, one provides the field schema, and one submits the enquiry. There is no meaningful overlap or risk of selecting the wrong tool for a given step.
All names use snake_case and are readable, but the pattern is mixed: two tools use an enquiry_ prefix while submit_enquiry uses a verb-noun form. The inconsistency is minor but noticeable.
Three tools is exactly right for this narrow, single-purpose workflow: describe, fields, and submit. Each tool earns its place and there is no unnecessary surface area.
The set fully covers the enquiry submission lifecycle for this domain: understanding the process, retrieving the required fields, and submitting with explicit consent confirmation. No obvious dead ends or missing operations exist.