enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Employer CPP EI 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, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly indicates that this tool returns field metadata and points to submit_enquiry as the place where answers are passed, which implies this tool is a read-only introspection step. It does not explicitly state 'read-only' or describe response shape, but the content is strong enough for an agent to understand its role.
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?
One sentence efficiently front-loads the resource, lists the returned metadata attributes, and finishes with a workflow instruction. There is no filler or repetition.
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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete: it says what is returned, the attributes included, and how the result connects to submission. An agent can invoke this tool and know what to expect and how to use the result.
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 empty schema fully covers input requirements and the baseline is 4. The description adds useful semantic context by explaining that the returned field keys should be used to structure answers for submit_enquiry.
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 specific resource—the Employer CPP EI Calculator enquiry—and enumerates the metadata it exposes (key, label, type, required, help text, options). It is not a tautology, but it stops short of explicitly differentiating itself from sibling tools like 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 a practical usage hint: answers should be passed to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, implying this tool is a prerequisite for submissions. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over enquiry_describe, calculator_describe, or calculate.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct roles: run the calculator, describe the calculator, describe the enquiry process, list enquiry fields, and submit the enquiry. The only mild ambiguity is between enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields, though their descriptions do separate high-level process from field schema.
The names mix conventions: 'submit_enquiry' and 'calculate' use verb-first style, while 'calculator_describe', 'enquiry_describe', and 'enquiry_fields' are noun-first. The names are still readable and intuitive, but the pattern is not consistent.
Five tools is well-scoped for this narrow calculator-plus-enquiry workflow. Each tool has a distinct purpose and the count feels neither bloated nor thin.
The tool set covers the full workflow: understanding the calculator, running it, understanding the enquiry flow, retrieving required fields, and submitting the enquiry with confirmation handling. There are no obvious dead ends for an agent helping a user complete this process.