enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Eligible By Descent 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 discloses the content and purpose of the tool well, making clear what the returned fields include. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or describe the output format, but the context strongly implies a metadata retrieval operation.
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 with no wasted words. The first sentence explains what the tool provides, and the second gives actionable guidance for using the output. It is appropriately concise and well-structured.
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 listing tool, the description is largely complete: it names the enquiry, lists the field attributes returned, and connects the output to submit_enquiry. It does not compare with enquiry_describe, but this omission is minor given the tool's simple and self-contained purpose.
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 the description correctly focuses on what information the tool returns rather than parameter details. The mention of field keys and submit_enquiry is useful contextual guidance. The schema is empty, so there is no parameter ambiguity to resolve.
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 returns every field of the Eligible By Descent enquiry, including key, label, type, required status, help text, and options. The title reinforces that it represents the questions the enquiry asks. It is specific about the resource but does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling 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 implies the tool should be used to discover field keys before calling submit_enquiry, stating 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key.' However, it does not explicitly compare against alternative tools like enquiry_describe or 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 maps to a clear, distinct step: checker_start begins the guide, checker_answer advances it, checker_tree provides the full map, and the enquiry tools cover description, schema, and submission. There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between the tools.
The checker_* and enquiry_* prefixes clearly group the two workflows, and most names read predictably. Slight inconsistency exists because submit_enquiry reverses the prefix/verb pattern and checker_tree is a noun rather than an action, but the overall pattern remains understandable.
Six tools is well-scoped for the server's two distinct purposes: a three-tool decision guide and a three-tool enquiry workflow. Each tool earns its place and the count is neither bloated nor thin.
The decision guide covers start, progression, and full tree access, so agents can navigate the entire flow. The enquiry workflow covers explanation, field schema, and the full two-step submission process, leaving no obvious dead ends or missing steps.