enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Georgia Roof Replacement 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the main behavioral content: the field metadata structure, required status, help text, and allowed options. It also reveals how the values should be used with submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly state that the call has no side effects, but the metadata-only framing makes that 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?
Two compact sentences cover what the tool returns and how to use the returned keys with submit_enquiry. Every clause adds information, with no padding or repetition.
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 tool with no output schema, the description is effectively complete: it enumerates the returned attributes and explains the downstream workflow. The sibling distinction is inferable from the title and wording, so no essential context is missing.
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 for the description to add. The description appropriately focuses on the returned field attributes rather than inventing parameter-level detail.
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 identifies the resource (Georgia Roof Replacement Cost enquiry fields) and the attributes returned (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). It is not tautological, but it lacks an explicit verb such as 'lists' or 'returns' and does not directly contrast 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 line 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' gives concrete usage context: consult this tool to learn the accepted field keys before submitting. It does not state when not to use it or explicitly compare with enquiry_describe, so it stops short of a full when/when-not guide.
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 role: one explains the process, one provides the data schema, and one performs the actual submission. There is no functional overlap between them.
All names are snake_case and readable, but the convention is mixed: 'enquiry_describe' and 'enquiry_fields' use a resource-first pattern, while 'submit_enquiry' uses verb-first. This is inconsistent but not chaotic.
Three tools is well-scoped for a single-purpose enquiry submission server. Each tool has a necessary place: describe, schema lookup, and submit.
The tool surface fully covers the expected workflow for this domain: understand the process, retrieve field definitions, and submit an enquiry with consent and confirmation. No obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated purpose.