enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Oklahoma Foundation Repair 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?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what data is returned and how it connects to submit_enquiry, implying a read-only metadata lookup. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects, does not describe the response format, or mention any access considerations.
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 concise and front-loaded, starting with 'Every field of the Oklahoma Foundation Repair Cost enquiry' and immediately enumerating the included metadata. The follow-up instruction about submit_enquiry is a single, purposeful sentence with 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?
For a zero-parameter metadata retrieval tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the agent will receive and how to use it downstream. It covers the practical need: know the field keys, required status, help text, and options before submitting an enquiry.
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 input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameters to document; the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds useful semantic context by explaining that the returned field keys should be used as keys when submitting answers, which connects the output to the sibling tool.
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 what the tool provides: every field of the Oklahoma Foundation Repair Cost enquiry, including key, label, type, required status, help text, and options. The title reinforces this by calling out 'the questions the enquiry asks.' It differentiates from submit_enquiry by focusing on field metadata, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from 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 instruction 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' gives clear, actionable context for when to use this tool: before submitting an enquiry. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the connection to submit_enquiry is a strong usage signal.
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: one explains the service, one describes the fields, and one submits the enquiry. There is no overlap or ambiguity between the three tools.
All names use snake_case and are clearly related to the enquiry domain, but the pattern is slightly inconsistent: "enquiry_describe" and "enquiry_fields" lead with the noun while "submit_enquiry" is a conventional verb_noun. This is a minor deviation rather than a confusing mix.
Three tools is well-scoped for a single-purpose enquiry submission flow. Each tool covers a needed stage without redundancy or unnecessary surface area.
The set fully covers the enquiry workflow: orientation, field schema, and a two-step submission that includes confirmation token handling. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations within the stated purpose.