enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Malta VAT Registration 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 disclosing behavior. It clearly implies a read-only metadata retrieval operation by describing the field attributes returned, and the instruction to pass answers to submit_enquiry emphasizes that this tool itself does not submit. It does not explicitly state side effects or auth, but for a simple zero-parameter getter the behavior is adequately transparent.
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 dense, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the resource and output fields; the second sentence gives a direct usage hint. 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?
For a simple zero-parameter introspection tool, the description covers the key information: what fields are listed and how the output should be used with submit_enquiry. It does not specify the exact return container (array vs object), but the list of attributes and the keyed-answers hint give enough context for an agent to proceed.
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 baseline is 4. The description needs to explain no parameters, and it appropriately focuses on the output rather than parameter semantics.
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 Malta VAT Registration enquiry') and enumerates exactly what is returned: key, label, type, required, help text, and allowed options. This differentiates it from siblings like submit_enquiry and checker_start by focusing on field metadata.
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 instructing 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key,' linking this tool to the submission workflow. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like enquiry_describe, but the intended usage is obvious from the field-key connection.
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 tool set splits cleanly into two domains: the Malta VAT registration checker flow (start, answer, tree) and the enquiry form (describe, fields, submit). Each tool has a distinct role with no meaningful overlap, so an agent can reliably select the right one.
Most tools follow a clear resource_prefix + action pattern, such as checker_start, checker_answer, enquiry_describe, and enquiry_fields. The main deviation is submit_enquiry, which reverses the word order, but the naming remains readable and predictable overall.
Six tools is a well-scoped set for the server's purpose: three for the checker decision guide and three for the enquiry workflow. Each tool earns its place and there is no bloat or missing scaffolding.
The checker tools fully cover the decision guide lifecycle: start, step through answers, and inspect the entire tree. The enquiry tools cover discovery, schema, and two-step confirmation submission, leaving no obvious dead ends in the intended workflow.