enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Malta Stamp Duty 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently lists what data is provided, including 'help text and the allowed options where there are any,' which gives useful detail. However, it never explicitly states the tool is read-only, has no side effects, or what the exact return shape is beyond the attribute list.
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 concise sentences with no filler. The core information about what the tool returns is front-loaded, followed by a practical usage note. Every clause 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?
Despite having no annotations and no output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to understand what this tool returns, what each field contains, and how to chain it with submit_enquiry. The attribute list (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options) fully compensates for the missing output schema.
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 properties, so there are no parameters to document. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds useful semantic information by explaining how the returned field keys are used in submit_enquiry, even though this relates to output rather than input.
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 states exactly what the tool returns: 'Every field of the Malta Stamp Duty enquiry' with an explicit list of attributes (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like submit_enquiry (which consumes answers) and enquiry_describe (which likely describes the enquiry as a whole).
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 provides clear context by telling the agent to 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key,' which directly connects this tool to its sibling workflow. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives like enquiry_describe, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer when to use this over the other siblings.
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 calculator tools and enquiry tools are cleanly separated by their domain prefixes, and within each pair the action/description/fields/submit roles are unambiguous. No two tools appear to do the same thing.
Naming is readable but mixes styles: 'calculate' and 'submit_enquiry' use verb-first patterns, while 'calculator_describe', 'enquiry_describe', and 'enquiry_fields' are noun-first descriptors. The pattern is not fully uniform, but the domain prefixes keep it understandable.
Five tools is appropriate for a focused calculator-and-enquiry server. Each tool serves a clear and necessary role without redundancy or bloat.
The tool set covers the full user journey: self-service calculation, calculator assumptions, enquiry explanation, field discovery, and two-step confirmed submission. Minor missing features like enquiry status/retrieval could be added, but nothing creates a dead end for the stated purpose.