enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the M&A Advisor Fees 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, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by specifying exactly what information is exposed and how the output relates to submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but the zero-parameter schema and descriptive nature make that reasonably 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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the content details, and the second immediately provides actionable guidance about downstream usage.
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 stateless metadata-introspection tool with no input schema and no output schema, the description is sufficient: it names the enquiry, enumerates the field metadata, and explains how to use the result. Nothing essential 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, so there is no parameter ambiguity. The description adds valuable semantic context by explaining that the field keys returned here are the same keys to use when submitting answers to 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 resource ('every field of the M&A Advisor Fees enquiry') and lists the exact content returned (key, label, type, required, help text, options). However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists', and it does not directly distinguish itself from 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?
It provides useful context by stating that answers should be passed to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, implying this tool is the right lookup before submission. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives like enquiry_describe, so it falls short of full routing guidance.
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 fee calculator, calculator_describe explains the calculator, enquiry_describe explains the enquiry process, enquiry_fields lists form fields, and submit_enquiry submits the two-step enquiry. No overlap or ambiguity between them.
Naming is mixed: calculate is a bare verb, calculator_describe and enquiry_describe follow a noun_describe pattern, enquiry_fields is noun_noun, and submit_enquiry is verb_noun. The patterns are readable but not consistent, requiring a bit more effort to infer tool behavior from names.
Five tools is well-scoped for a server that covers both a calculator and an enquiry flow. Each tool has a distinct role and the count feels neither thin nor bloated.
The server covers its full lifecycle: users can calculate fees, understand the calculator, learn about the enquiry process, get the required fields, and submit the enquiry with confirmation. There are no missing operations that would leave an agent stuck.