enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Malta Work Permit Checker 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 burden. It discloses that the tool produces field metadata and implies a read-only, non-submitting role by pointing to submit_enquiry for actual answers. It does not explicitly state 'does not modify anything' or mention auth/rate limits, which keeps this at 4 rather than 5.
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?
A single dense sentence packs the resource, the enumerated return fields, and the downstream usage instruction. There is no filler or redundancy; every phrase 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 introspection tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description fully compensates by enumerating exactly what will be returned and how to apply the result when calling submit_enquiry. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.
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 description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description adds useful meaning by explaining how the returned field keys should be used as input keys for submit_enquiry.
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 ('the Malta Work Permit Checker enquiry') and the content delivered: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It is not phrased with an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists', but the title and sentence together leave little doubt. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling enquiry_describe, so it stops short of a 5.
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 supplies clear workflow context by telling the agent to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. It does not explicitly enumerate alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the intended use is obvious for a schema-like introspection tool.
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 tools are cleanly split into two domains: the checker decision guide (start, answer, tree) and the enquiry submission flow (describe, fields, submit). Each tool has a distinct role with no overlapping responsibilities, so an agent can easily select the right one.
Most names follow a noun_prefix pattern (checker_*, enquiry_*) but the verb placement varies: checker_start and checker_answer are noun-verb, while enquiry_describe is noun-verb and submit_enquiry is verb-noun. Slight inconsistency but still readable and predictable within each group.
Six tools is an appropriate scope for a focused site: three for the interactive guide and three for the enquiry workflow. No redundancy and no missing obvious operations, each tool earns its place.
The tool surface fully covers the stated purpose: the checker guide can be traversed (start, answer, tree) and the enquiry flow is complete (describe, fields, submit). There are no dead ends or missing lifecycle steps for either workflow.