enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Sellable Score 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 burden. It communicates the informational payload and implies a read-only schema lookup, and it explains how the output feeds submit_enquiry. However, it never explicitly states that the tool has no side effects or what the response structure looks like.
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 tight sentences with no filler. The field contents are front-loaded and the workflow linkage is placed at the end, making the description easy to scan and act on.
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 introspection tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and how to use it with submit_enquiry. It omits an explicit verb and response format, but these gaps are low-risk given the simple, no-input context.
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 has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description adds practical meaning by explaining that the returned field keys are the keys to use when submitting answers.
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 identifies the resource (Sellable Score enquiry fields) and precisely enumerates what is exposed: key, label, type, required, help text, and allowed options. It lacks an explicit operational verb like 'list' or 'get', which prevents a top score, but it clearly differentiates from submit_enquiry by explaining how the data is meant to be used.
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 final sentence gives concrete workflow guidance: use this tool's field keys when passing answers to submit_enquiry. It provides clear context but does not explicitly contrast this tool with siblings such as enquiry_describe or checker_start.
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 six tools split cleanly into two workflows: the Exit readiness checker (start, answer, tree) and the Sellable Score enquiry (describe, fields, submit). Even the closest pair, enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields, are clearly separated by purpose: one explains the workflow, the other defines the input schema.
Tools consistently use snake_case and meaningful domain prefixes: checker_* and enquiry_*. However, there is no uniform verb_noun pattern: checker_start, checker_tree and enquiry_fields are noun-like, while submit_enquiry is verb-first and checker_answer is ambiguous between noun and command.
Six tools is well-scoped for a server covering two distinct features: a decision guide and an enquiry form. Each tool has a clear role and none feel redundant or unnecessary.
The checker workflow is fully covered: start, navigate with answers, and access the full decision tree. The enquiry workflow is also complete: describe the process, provide fields, and submit in a two-step confirmation flow with consent and token handling.