enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Jet Operating 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 burden of explaining behavior. It discloses what the tool provides: an exhaustive set of field metadata, including allowed options. It also implies a read-only informational purpose, though it never explicitly says it has no side effects or describes the output format. It adds meaningful context beyond the tool name, but stops short of full behavioral disclosure.
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. The first sentence enumerates exactly what metadata is returned, and the second provides the actionable relationship to submit_enquiry. It is front-loaded with the resource description and ends with practical usage guidance.
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, no-output-schema metadata tool, the description is largely complete: it explains the returned fields and how to use them. The only minor gap is that it doesn't state the output format or explicitly confirm the tool is read-only, but given the low complexity and clear wording, these are small omissions.
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 takes zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to clarify; the description appropriately focuses on what the returned fields contain and how they should be used as keys for submit_enquiry.
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's resource: all fields of the Jet Operating Cost enquiry, including their metadata such as key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. It doesn't use an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list', but the intent is unmistakable and it distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by describing the data structure rather than submitting answers.
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 gives practical guidance: fields are to be discovered here and answers passed to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. This establishes a clear workflow context and relationship to a sibling tool. It doesn't mention exclusions or alternatives such as enquiry_describe or calculate, but the usage context is clear enough for an agent to know 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 clearly distinct purpose: calculate runs the cost model, enquiry_describe explains what an enquiry does, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the submission. There is no meaningful overlap between them.
All names use snake_case, but the pattern is mixed: calculate is a bare verb, submit_enquiry is verb_noun, enquiry_describe is noun_verb, and enquiry_fields is noun_noun. The names are still readable and understandable, but they do not follow one consistent convention.
At roughly four to five tools, the set is well-scoped for a narrow site workflow covering a calculator and an enquiry submission flow. Each tool earns its place, and the count feels appropriately lean rather than bloated.
The enquiry workflow is well covered with describe, fields, and a two-step submit flow. However, the calculator side only exposes calculate with no equivalent describe or fields tool to discover its input parameters and defaults, which is a notable gap for agent usability.