enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Notice Period Australia 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 communicates that the tool exposes every field and its metadata, and it strongly implies a read-only introspection role by directing actual submission to submit_enquiry. It could be more explicit about having no side effects, but the read-only nature is reasonably clear.
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 tight sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads what every field contains, and the second directly connects the output to the sibling submit_enquiry tool.
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 parameterless metadata lookup, the description covers what the returned data contains and how it should be used in the broader enquiry workflow. Since there is no output schema, a more explicit statement about the return shape, such as 'returns a list of field objects', would make it fully complete.
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 schema coverage is effectively complete, so there is little parameter documentation needed. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description adds useful context by telling callers how to map returned field keys to submit_enquiry answers.
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 Notice Period Australia enquiry — and enumerates exactly what is exposed for every field (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). It is implicitly a field-metadata lookup, but it lacks an explicit operative verb like 'returns' or 'lists', and it does not directly contrast itself with 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 usage context by instructing callers to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, which implies this tool should be used to discover the expected field structure before submitting. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for the same purpose, so it stops short of a 5.
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: calculate runs the calculator, calculator_describe explains it, enquiry_describe explains the enquiry flow, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the two-step submission. There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between any pair.
The names are readable and consistently snake_case, but the pattern is mixed: calculate and submit_enquiry are verb-first, while calculator_describe, enquiry_describe, and enquiry_fields are noun-first. A consistent verb_noun pattern such as describe_calculator, describe_enquiry, and get_enquiry_fields would improve predictability.
Five tools is a well-scoped set for a site with two distinct workflows: the notice calculator and the enquiry submission. Each tool earns its place, and the count is neither thin nor bloated.
The calculator workflow is complete with both execution and description, and the enquiry workflow covers overview, field schema, and the full two-step consent-based submission process. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated purpose.