enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Exit Value Calculator 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 behavioral burden. It describes the content returned but does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or has side effects. Since it is a field-listing tool, read-only is implied but not stated. It also doesn't mention error cases or edge behavior, but for a simple retrieval this is acceptable.
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?
A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then details the return fields and usage. No redundant words, and it efficiently conveys all necessary information.
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 tool with no output schema, the description fully specifies what the agent receives (field metadata) and how to apply it (keying answers for submit_enquiry). This is complete for an agent to call and use correctly.
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 schema is trivially complete. The description adds context about the output structure (fields with attributes) and how to use the keys, which is valuable despite the absence of parameters.
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 the tool returns every field of the Exit Value Calculator enquiry with specific attributes (key, label, type, required, help, options). The verb 'returns' and resource 'enquiry fields' are explicit, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like submit_enquiry (which submits) and calculate (which computes) by focusing on field metadata.
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 provides a clear usage context: the output should be used to key answers for submit_enquiry. This tells the agent how to chain the tool with a sibling. It doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus enquiry_describe, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer when to call 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 distinct purpose: calculate runs the tax calculator, calculator_describe explains its inputs/outputs, enquiry_describe explains the enquiry process, enquiry_fields lists form fields, and submit_enquiry performs the submission. There is no overlap between any of them, making selection unambiguous.
Naming mixes patterns: 'calculate' is a bare verb, 'calculator_describe' and 'enquiry_describe' use noun_verb, 'enquiry_fields' uses noun_noun, and 'submit_enquiry' uses verb_noun. While the pattern is not uniform, each name still conveys its function reasonably well, and the mixing is not chaotic.
Five tools is a well-scoped set for a server that handles both a calculator and an enquiry form. Each tool addresses a necessary step (describe, calculate, fields, submit), with no redundancy or excessive bloat.
The server covers the full workflow: for the calculator, it provides execution and documentation; for the enquiry, it provides process description, field listing, and submission with a two-step confirmation. There are no obvious missing operations for the stated domain.