enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Football Agent Index 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 full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns field metadata rather than performing a mutation, and it enumerates what information is available. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, but the metadata-listing nature makes that sufficiently clear.
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 filler. It front-loads the key metadata attributes, then ends with a concise, actionable usage note. Every sentence earns its place.
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 tool with no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides exactly what an agent needs: what the tool returns, the structure of that return, and how to use the returned keys. It is complete for this low-complexity 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 no parameters, which earns a baseline of 4. The description adds useful semantic context by indicating that the returned field keys are the exact keys to use for submit_enquiry, which helps the agent connect this tool's output to the next step.
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 this tool exposes every field of the Football Agent Index enquiry along with metadata such as key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. It differentiates itself from submit_enquiry by explaining that answers should be passed using these field keys, though it does not explicitly contrast with 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 second sentence gives actionable usage guidance: call this tool to discover field keys, then use those keys when calling submit_enquiry. This establishes clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or name 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: checker_start initiates the flow, checker_answer advances it, and checker_tree provides the full static tree. The three enquiry tools are equally distinct: describe explains the process, fields defines the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the actual submission.
The naming uses domain prefixes (checker_*, enquiry_*) which helps, but the word ordering is inconsistent: checker_answer and enquiry_describe are noun_verb, checker_tree and enquiry_fields are noun_noun, while submit_enquiry is verb_noun. This mixed convention makes the set slightly less predictable.
Six tools is a well-scoped count for this server. It covers two small workflows without unnecessary duplication or overwhelming the agent.
The checker workflow is fully covered with start, step-by-step answering, and full tree access. The enquiry workflow is also complete: overview, field schema, and a two-step submission process with validation and confirmation.