enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the MPRP Calculator 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 behavioral disclosure. It openly describes what the tool returns (field metadata and allowed options) and how the result should be used. Although it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, the informational nature is evident from the description.
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 and contains no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and enumerates the field attributes; the second sentence provides actionable guidance on using the output. 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?
There is no output schema, so the description must explain what the tool returns; it does so by listing the field attributes. It also explains how to use the result with submit_enquiry, which is valuable. The main gap is not clarifying the relationship to enquiry_describe, but for a zero-parameter informational tool this is largely sufficient.
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 schema offers no meaningful required information. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds useful context by explaining that the returned field keys are to be used when submitting answers. This is appropriate.
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 that the tool provides every field of the MPRP Calculator enquiry, including key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. It does not use an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', but the meaning is unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by saying answers should be passed to that tool keyed by field key, though it does not differentiate 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 implies a workflow: retrieve fields from this tool, then pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. This gives clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over enquiry_describe or any other alternative, nor does it mention any exclusions.
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 purpose: calculate runs the calculator, calculator_describe explains the calculator, enquiry_describe explains the enquiry flow, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry submits. There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between them.
The names are readable but follow mixed conventions: 'calculate' is a bare verb, while 'calculator_describe' and 'enquiry_describe' use noun_verb reversed, and 'enquiry_fields' is a noun phrase. The pattern is not chaotic, but it is inconsistent enough to be noticeable.
Five tools is well-scoped for a calculator-plus-enquiry server. Each tool covers a necessary function without bloat or redundancy.
The toolset fully covers its stated domain: calculating costs, understanding the calculator, understanding the enquiry process, fetching the enquiry fields, and submitting an enquiry. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations.