enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Get 409A Valuation 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?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the exact return contents and the relationship between field keys and submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly state that the call is read-only or side-effect-free, but the zero-parameter metadata nature makes that clear from context.
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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the tool's scope and content, and the second connects it to the next action. Every part 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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, this is complete. It explains what is returned, the attributes included, and how to use the result with submit_enquiry. Nothing essential for calling this tool 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 input schema has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameters. The description appropriately focuses on the output and downstream usage instead.
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 tool as providing every field of the Get 409A Valuation enquiry and enumerates exactly what each entry includes: key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. It stops short of an explicit verb like 'lists' or 'returns', and it does not differentiate itself from the sibling enquiry_describe, so it misses a 5.
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?
It gives a concrete downstream instruction: pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. This implies the output should be used to construct a submission, but it never explicitly says when to choose this tool over sibling tools or when not to use 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.
The two functional areas are clearly separated: checker_* tools handle an interactive decision tree, while enquiry_* tools handle the enquiry submission flow. Within each group, each tool has a distinct role: start/answer/tree for the checker, and describe/fields/submit for the enquiry.
All names are lowercase snake_case and mostly use domain prefixes (checker_ and enquiry_), which is easy to read and predict. The minor inconsistency is submit_enquiry, which reverses the domain/action order compared to enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields.
Six tools is a well-scoped count: three tools cover the interactive checklist flow and three cover the enquiry submission flow. Each tool has a clear purpose and none feel redundant.
The checker flow is complete: start begins, answer progresses, and tree provides the full decision graph for end-to-end reasoning. The enquiry flow is also complete: describe explains the process, fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry handles both validation and final submission with confirmation.