enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Marine Insurance Cost 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the output content (field attributes) but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, error behavior, or rate limits. For a simple listing tool, this is acceptable but not fully 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?
The description is a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists the specific attributes returned. It also includes a practical pointer to submit_enquiry. No wasted words.
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?
Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides the essential context: what fields are returned and how to use them. It could mention the output format (e.g., a list of objects) or explicitly contrast with enquiry_describe, but overall it is sufficient for a no-arg tool.
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, and the description implies no input is required ('Every field of the enquiry'). Since there are no parameters, the description need not elaborate on them. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no ambiguity.
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 returns every field of the Marine Insurance Cost enquiry, specifying the exact attributes (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). This is a specific verb-resource combination. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'enquiry_describe', but the focus on fields and submission linkage makes the purpose reasonably distinct.
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 a usage hint ('Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key') but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like enquiry_describe. It implies this is for fetching field definitions, but lacks an explicit 'use this instead of X when...' statement.
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: enquiry_describe explains the process, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry executes the submission. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
The names are readable and snake_case throughout, but the pattern is mixed: two tools use 'enquiry_' as a prefix while the third uses 'submit_' as a verb prefix, and 'enquiry_describe' reverses the expected verb-noun order. Still, the intent is fairly predictable.
With only 3 tools, the set is minimal but perfectly scoped for a single form submission workflow. Each tool earns its place.
The workflow is fully covered: learners can read the overview, inspect all fields, and complete the two-step consent/submission process. No obvious missing operations for this narrow domain.