enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Malta Property Tax 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 behavioral disclosure burden. It explains what the tool returns in detail and signals a read-only metadata role by positioning the output as the keying source for submit_enquiry. It does not discuss errors or authentication, but the core behavior is transparent for a simple field-listing tool.
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 enumerates the returned field metadata, and the second gives a direct pointer to the related submission tool. The most important information is front-loaded.
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 metadata tool, the description adequately explains the returned content and how to use it. The main missing piece is distinguishing this tool from enquiry_describe, and there is no output schema to fall back on for return-value details.
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 the parameter baseline is 4. The description needs no parameter explanation, and the reference to field keys is about output semantics, not input parameters.
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 that the tool exposes every field of the Malta Property Tax enquiry, including key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It is clearly distinct from submit_enquiry, but it does not explicitly 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?
The description gives clear usage context by telling the agent to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. This implies when to use the tool (before submission, to learn the field structure), though it does not explicitly mention enquiry_describe as an alternative.
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 role: one explains the process, one provides the input schema, and one performs the two-step submission. There is no meaningful overlap between their purposes.
All names use snake_case and revolve around the enquiry concept, but the pattern is mixed: 'enquiry_describe' and 'enquiry_fields' put the noun first, while 'submit_enquiry' uses verb-first order. The names are still readable and reasonably related.
Three tools is exactly right for this narrow, single-purpose workflow: description, field discovery, and submission. Each tool earns its place and there are no redundant or missing operations at this scope.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle of the enquiry flow: reading about it, discovering required fields, and submitting with consent and confirmation. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated purpose.