enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Florida Water Damage 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes what the tool returns and implies it is a read-only operation by nature, but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, is non-destructive, or any other behavioral traits. For a simple getter, this is adequate but not thorough.
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, front-loaded sentence that immediately identifies the subject ('Every field of the Florida Water Damage Cost enquiry') and lists the key attributes. It includes a practical usage note. Every word earns its place; no fluff.
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?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what fields are returned and how they should be used (keyed for submit_enquiry). It does not detail the output structure (e.g., array vs object) or any error cases, but for a simple metadata retrieval tool, this is reasonably complete.
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 the schema is empty (coverage 100%). The description adds no parameter-specific information because there are none to describe. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly focuses on the output rather than 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 a specific enquiry (Florida Water Damage Cost) with details like key, label, type, required, help text, and options. It identifies the resource and the action (listing fields), which distinguishes it from submit_enquiry. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from enquiry_describe, so a clear sibling distinction is missing.
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 clear usage context: use this tool to obtain field definitions, then pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. It implies when to use it (before submitting) but doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to enquiry_describe. It gives a useful pointer to the sibling workflow.
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: one explains the process, one lists input fields, and one handles submission. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Naming follows a general pattern but is inconsistent in word order: 'enquiry_describe' and 'enquiry_fields' place the noun first, while 'submit_enquiry' places the verb first. This mixed convention could confuse an agent expecting a uniform verb_noun style.
With only 3 tools, the set is tightly scoped to a single enquiry submission workflow. Each tool is necessary and sufficient for the stated purpose, making the count ideal for this narrow domain.
The tools cover the complete enquiry lifecycle: understand the process, retrieve field definitions, and submit with a two-step confirmation. There are no missing operations that would cause agent failure for the intended use case.