enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Own vs Charter 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal what data will be returned and that the output keys feed into submit_enquiry, but it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, how errors behave, or what happens if the enquiry has no fields.
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 only two sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and contains no filler or repetition. Every clause adds value, and the connection to submit_enquiry is placed at the end as a practical tip.
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 is sufficiently complete. It lists exactly what information will be returned and explains how that information should be used by submit_enquiry. There is no missing context that would prevent an agent from invoking it correctly.
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 confirms this, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details because none are needed, and its mention of using field keys for submit_enquiry is about output semantics rather than input parameters.
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 resource as 'Every field of the Own vs Charter enquiry' and enumerates the returned metadata (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). It is specific and actionable, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling enquiry_describe, so it stops short of a 5.
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 useful context about how the output should be used. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.
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.
The checker tools and enquiry tools are clearly separated by purpose: start/answer/tree handle the decision guide flow, while describe/fields/submit handle the enquiry submission flow. Within each group, each tool has a distinct role with no meaningful overlap.
Most tools follow a clear domain-prefixed naming pattern: checker_start, checker_answer, checker_tree, enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields. The one deviation is submit_enquiry, which reverses the pattern, and checker_tree/enquiry_fields use nouns rather than verbs, but overall the naming remains predictable and readable.
Six tools is well-scoped for this server's two clear workflows: a decision-tree checker and an enquiry submission flow. Each tool serves a necessary function and none feel redundant.
The checker workflow has start, step-by-step progression, and full-tree access, covering all user reasoning paths. The enquiry workflow has description, field schema, and two-step submission with confirmation, leaving no obvious dead ends or missing steps.