enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Exit Tax Estimator 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 full burden. It transparently enumerates what the tool exposes and clarifies that submission happens elsewhere via submit_enquiry, implying this is a non-mutating metadata operation. It could be stronger with an explicit 'read-only' statement, but the behavior is otherwise well disclosed.
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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the core output contents, followed by a useful cross-reference to submit_enquiry. Every phrase earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of the title.
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?
With no output schema, the description must explain return values, and it does so thoroughly: key, label, type, required, help text, and allowed options. It also names the downstream consumer (submit_enquiry) and how to key answers. Nothing else is needed for an agent to correctly use this metadata 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 and an empty input schema, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline of 4 applies; the description correctly avoids inventing parameters and instead directs relevant field-key information toward 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 specifies the resource (the Exit Tax Estimator enquiry) and the exact content of the tool's output: field key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It is identifiable as a field-metadata listing tool, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists' and does not directly contrast itself with the 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 gives a practical usage hint: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key,' which tells the agent how to consume the output. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over related siblings such as enquiry_describe or checker_tree, so the usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.
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.
The tool set cleanly separates into two prefixes: checker_* for the decision guide and enquiry_* for the estimator form. Within each group, each tool has a distinct role: start, answer, tree for the checker; describe, fields, submit for the enquiry.
All tool names use snake_case with a consistent domain-prefix pattern: checker_start, checker_answer, checker_tree and enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields, submit_enquiry. The naming makes the grouping and purpose immediately predictable.
Six tools is a well-scoped count for a server covering two distinct workflows: a decision guide and an enquiry submission flow. Every tool earns its place and there is no unnecessary redundancy.
The checker workflow is complete: start gives an entry point, answer navigates the tree, and tree allows full end-to-end reasoning. The enquiry workflow is also complete: describe explains the process, fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry handles the two-step consent and confirmation flow.