enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Scaffolding Cost 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation by listing field attributes, but it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or has no side effects. It adds context about the data structure, but safety is not explicitly disclosed.
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, no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the key information about the fields, and the second provides a practical usage hint. Every word 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?
For a parameterless read tool, the description is complete: it specifies exactly what fields are returned and how to use the keys. It does not mention the exact response format (e.g., array vs object), but the phrasing 'Every field' implies a collection. Overall, sufficient for an agent to call 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 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it correctly focuses on the output content. The schema coverage is 100% (vacuously), so no parameter information is missing.
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 tool's purpose: it lists every field of the enquiry (key, label, type, required, help text, options). The verb is implied but the resource is specific, and it distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by mentioning how to use the returned keys.
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 explicit usage context: after retrieving fields, pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. This tells the agent when to use this tool (to get field metadata before submission). It does not mention alternatives like enquiry_describe, but the workflow is clear.
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: calculate runs the calculator, calculator_describe explains its inputs/outputs, enquiry_describe explains the enquiry flow, enquiry_fields lists fields, and submit_enquiry handles submission. There is no ambiguity between them.
Naming conventions are mixed: 'calculate' is a bare verb, 'calculator_describe' and 'enquiry_describe' are noun-verb, 'enquiry_fields' is noun-noun, and 'submit_enquiry' is verb-noun. The style is inconsistent, making it harder to predict tool names.
With only 5 tools, the set is well-scoped for a calculator with an enquiry submission flow. Each tool earns its place and the count is appropriate for the domain.
The surface covers the full lifecycle: calculating costs, understanding the calculator, understanding the enquiry process, getting the required fields, and submitting an enquiry with confirmation. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.