enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Mail Merge PDF 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 full responsibility. It indicates a read-only retrieval of field definitions and enumerates the content, which is transparent enough for a parameterless lookup. It does not disclose the exact return format or error behavior, though those gaps are minor given the tool's simplicity.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the resource and enumerates the returned attributes before adding a usage hint. There is no filler or repetition, though it could be marginally improved by starting with an explicit verb.
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 parameterless tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains what is returned, which attributes are included, and how to use the result with submit_enquiry. The main missing detail is the exact return container (list vs. object), but this is a reasonable gap for such a simple retrieval 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 takes zero parameters, so the description has nothing to add beyond the empty schema. The baseline for a 0-parameter tool is 4, and the description's mention of field keys aligns with the downstream submit_enquiry flow, adding slight contextual value.
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 Mail Merge PDF enquiry') and enumerates the attributes it exposes (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). The verb is implicit rather than explicit, but the scope is unambiguous. It makes a partial distinction from submit_enquiry, though not from the other sibling tools.
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 an implied usage context: fetch fields first, then pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over enquiry_describe or the checker tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is inferable but not explicit.
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 six tools split cleanly into two distinct groups: the checker (start, answer, tree) for a decision guide and the enquiry (describe, fields, submit) for submitting an enquiry. Within each group, each tool has a clear, unique purpose with no overlapping functionality.
All names use snake_case and are mostly prefixed by their domain (checker_ or enquiry_). The only minor inconsistency is 'submit_enquiry' which puts the action first instead of the domain prefix, but it remains readable and predictable.
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose: three tools cover the decision guide lifecycle and three cover the enquiry submission process. Each tool earns its place, and the count is within the ideal 3-15 range.
The checker covers the full flow: start, step through answers, and view the entire tree. The enquiry covers all necessary steps: understand what it does, get field definitions, and submit with confirmation. There are no obvious missing operations or dead ends.