enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Malta Crypto Licence 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 full burden. It clearly indicates this is a read-only listing operation (no side effects implied) and discloses the exact content of the response. It doesn't mention authentication or pagination, but for a simple field-listing tool, that is not a critical omission.
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 long with no filler. The first sentence front-loads what the tool returns, and the second provides a clear pointer to the sibling tool. Every word 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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description is fully complete. It enumerates the return fields (key, label, type, required, help text, options) and explains how the result should be used (keyed answers for submit_enquiry). Nothing an agent needs 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, so the description does not need to explain any. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description appropriately says nothing about parameters, which is correct — there are none to document.
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 states the tool's function: it lists every field of a specific enquiry (Malta Crypto Licence) and enumerates the returned attributes (key, label, type, required, help text, options). It is distinct from the sibling tools — submit_enquiry handles submissions, and enquiry_describe likely describes the enquiry as a whole — making the purpose unambiguous.
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 explicitly instructs the agent to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, indicating this tool is meant to fetch field definitions before submission. This provides a clear when-to-use context and a direct connection to the next step, though it doesn't explicitly state 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.
Each tool has a distinct role: describe explains the process, fields provides the schema, and submit handles the actual submission. No overlap or confusion between them.
All tools follow a consistent 'enquiry_' prefix with a clear verb: describe, fields, submit. This pattern is uniform and predictable.
Three tools perfectly cover the enquiry workflow without excess or deficiency. The scope is narrow and each tool earns its place.
The tool set fully covers the enquiry lifecycle: explaining, schema discovery, and a two-step submission process. No obvious gaps exist for the stated purpose.