enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the MiCA Requirements 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 full burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the expected content of the tool's response: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It also indirectly signals that this tool is informational rather than a submission action by directing actual answers to submit_enquiry.
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 sentences long, with no filler. The first sentence states what the tool exposes, and the second provides the key usage pointer. Every sentence 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, the description sufficiently explains what will be returned and how the result should be used downstream. The sibling tools are mostly distinct, and the connection to submit_enquiry is explicitly made.
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 input parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain. The mention of field keys is not about this tool's parameters but about how to use the returned data with submit_enquiry, which is still useful context.
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 tool's resource: every field of the MiCA Requirements enquiry, listing the attributes included (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). It is easy to understand what the tool returns, though it lacks a direct action verb like 'lists' or 'returns' and 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 context by telling the agent to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, implying this tool is the lookup step before submission. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare against sibling tools, so it falls just short of full guidance.
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: checker_start, checker_answer, and checker_tree map to different ways of interacting with the decision guide, while enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields, and submit_enquiry cover distinct aspects of the enquiry flow. There is no meaningful overlap that would cause an agent to select the wrong tool.
Tool names follow a clear pattern using 'checker_' and 'enquiry_' prefixes, with the second part indicating the action or resource. The one minor inconsistency is submit_enquiry, which inverts the verb_first ordering compared to enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields, but the overall scheme remains predictable.
Six tools is well-scoped for the server's dual purpose of running a decision checklist and submitting an enquiry. Each tool earns its place, and the count is neither too thin nor bloated.
The checker workflow is complete with start, stepwise answer, and full tree access, while the enquiry workflow covers description, field metadata, and the two-step consent-based submission. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated domain.