enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Saudi Company Setup 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 transparency burden. It states exactly what metadata is returned and, by pointing to submit_enquiry for sending answers, implies this tool is a read-only lookup rather than a submission action. It could explicitly state 'read-only' or 'does not submit', but the wording is sufficient for this metadata tool.
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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the complete set of returned field attributes, and the second gives the actionable relation to submit_enquiry.
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, the description covers what an agent needs: the field metadata contents and how to use the results with submit_enquiry. Nothing essential 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 input schema is empty and has 100% coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description adds semantic value by explaining that the field keys are the connection to submit_enquiry, which goes beyond what the empty schema can provide.
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 tool's resource: every field of the Saudi Company Setup Cost enquiry, including key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. It also distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by instructing that answers should be passed there keyed by field key, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists'.
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 downstream usage instruction: use the field keys to pass answers to submit_enquiry. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool versus the sibling enquiry_describe, leaving some inference to the agent.
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: one explains the process, one provides the field schema, and one handles submission. There is no overlap; an agent can clearly choose which tool to call based on the step in the workflow.
All names use snake_case and are readable, but the pattern mixes noun-first (enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields) and verb-first (submit_enquiry). This minor inconsistency does not hinder understanding, but a fully uniform verb_noun pattern would be slightly better.
Three tools is perfectly scoped for a focused enquiry submission flow. Each tool serves a necessary step—orientation, data schema, and submission—without redundancy or bloat.
The tools cover the entire enquiry lifecycle: understanding what the process is, getting the required fields, and performing the two-step submission with confirmation. There are no obvious gaps for the stated purpose.