enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Ohio Roof Replacement 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the returned content but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only, non-destructive operation, nor does it mention any authentication or side effects. The read-only nature is implied but not stated, leaving some transparency gap.
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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the output content, and the second gives a direct usage hint. Every word 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 tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns (the field attributes) and how to use it (with submit_enquiry). It also scopes the enquiry to 'Ohio Roof Replacement Cost', providing necessary context. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.
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 baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter semantics because there are none to explain, which 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 the tool returns every field of the Ohio Roof Replacement Cost enquiry, listing the specific attributes (key, label, type, required, help text, options). It also references the sibling submit_enquiry, making its purpose distinct from simply describing the enquiry.
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 clear usage context by instructing that answers should be passed to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. However, it does not explicitly contrast with enquiry_describe or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full exclusion 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: one explains the workflow, one defines the input schema, and one performs the actual submission. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
The names all include 'enquiry' and use snake_case, but two use an enquiry_ prefix while the action tool is verb-first as submit_enquiry. This is a minor inconsistency rather than a confusing mix.
Three tools is appropriate for a single, focused enquiry workflow. Each tool earns its place and there is no redundancy or bloat.
The tool set covers the full enquiry lifecycle: understanding the process, retrieving the exact fields, and submitting with a two-step confirmation flow. No significant operations are missing for the stated purpose.