enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Cyprus Gross to Net 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 of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose what the output contains and how it relates to submit_enquiry, but it never states whether this operation is read-only, whether it reflects live enquiry state, or what happens if no fields exist. This is adequate but not fully transparent.
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 focused sentences: the first succinctly enumerates the return contents, and the second gives practical usage guidance. There is no filler or repetition of the tool name.
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 no-parameter, no-output-schema metadata tool, the description covers the output structure and the downstream relationship to submit_enquiry. It is nearly complete, but it does not explicitly clarify how enquiry_fields differs from enquiry_describe or state that no mutation is performed.
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 documentation is not needed. The description still adds value by explaining that the returned field keys are the ones to use when submitting answers, which orients the agent for downstream invocation.
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 identifies a specific resource (the Cyprus Gross to Net enquiry) and enumerates exactly what is returned: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It lacks an explicit verb like 'fetch' or 'list,' and it does not distinguish itself from the sibling enquiry_describe, so it falls 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 sentence 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' implies a workflow: fetch fields first, then submit answers using those keys. However, it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus enquiry_describe or calculator_describe, and it provides no exclusions or alternatives.
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 purpose: calculate executes the calculator, calculator_describe explains it, enquiry_describe explains the enquiry flow, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the submission. No two tools appear to do the same thing.
The names are readable and all use snake_case, but they mix verb-first naming like calculate and submit_enquiry with noun-first naming like calculator_describe and enquiry_fields. This inconsistency is noticeable but not chaotic.
Five tools is well-scoped for this server: two tools cover the calculator itself and its documentation, and three tools cover the enquiry lifecycle. Each tool earns its place without unnecessary overlap or bloat.
The tool set fully covers the advertised domain: calculation, calculator metadata, enquiry process explanation, enquiry field schema, and the two-step submission flow. There are no obvious gaps that would prevent an agent from completing the intended workflow.