enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the PRSI 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 behavioral disclosure burden. It signals an introspection/read-only operation and describes the returned field attributes, including the conditional 'where there are any' for options. However, it never explicitly states the output format (e.g., list of field objects) or that the tool has no side effects, so some behavioral detail is left implicit.
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 specifies the resource and its content; the second gives a direct action for using the result. The structure is scannable and every sentence 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?
The description is sufficient for a metadata-listing tool with no input parameters and no output schema: it names the resource, lists the returned attributes, and tells the agent how to route the result to submit_enquiry. A minor gap is not explicitly stating whether the result is an array or a keyed object, though 'keyed by field key' partially implies this.
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 is empty, so there are no parameters to document; the zero-parameter baseline is 4. The description adds useful semantic context about what a 'field' contains, which helps the agent understand the metadata returned rather than any 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 identifies the resource ('Every field of the PRSI Calculator enquiry') and enumerates what is included: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It is distinguishable from submit_enquiry via the final sentence, but it lacks an explicit verb such as 'lists' or 'returns' and does not explicitly contrast with enquiry_describe or calculator_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 sentence 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' gives concrete workflow guidance: use this tool to learn the field keys before submitting an enquiry. It does not state when to avoid this tool or choose a sibling instead, but this connection to submit_enquiry provides clear context.
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 distinct role: calculate runs the calculator, calculator_describe explains it, enquiry_describe explains the enquiry process, enquiry_fields provides field metadata, and submit_enquiry performs the two-step submission. There is no meaningful overlap between the tools.
Naming conventions are mixed: calculate and submit_enquiry are verb-first, while calculator_describe and enquiry_describe place the noun first and enquiry_fields is a noun phrase. The inconsistency makes the set feel less predictable, though still readable.
Five tools is well-scoped for a single calculator plus enquiry workflow. Each tool earns a place and the count is neither thin nor bloated.
The surface covers both major functions: running/explaining the PRSI calculation and describing/submitting an enquiry with all needed metadata and consent flow. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations within the stated domain.