enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Ski Transfer Quotes 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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently describes what the tool returns: all field metadata. It implies a read-only introspection behavior, which is clear enough for an agent to know not to expect side effects.
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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists exactly what fields are included. No filler or redundant phrasing exists.
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 is sufficient: it enumerates the return contents and explains how the result relates to submit_enquiry. An agent has enough information to decide when to call it and what to do with the response.
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 no parameters, so the description does not need to document any. It still adds useful semantic context by indicating that the field keys returned by this tool are the same keys used in submit_enquiry, which helps the agent connect the two tools.
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 what the tool does: it returns every field of the Ski Transfer Quotes enquiry, including key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. This distinguishes it from submit_enquiry, which is referenced as the destination for the answers.
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 clear context by explaining that answers should be passed to submit_enquiry keyed by the field key, implying this tool is used to discover valid keys before submitting. It does not explicitly contrast with enquiry_describe, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.
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.
enquiry_describe explains the process, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the submission. There is no semantic overlap between these three concerns.
Two tools share an 'enquiry_' prefix, but submit_enquiry breaks the pattern by leading with the verb. The names are readable and consistent in snake_case, but the convention is mixed rather than uniform.
Three tools is exactly right for an enquiry-submission flow: one for explanation, one for schema, one for submission. Every tool has a distinct role and no tool feels redundant.
The set covers the full lifecycle needed: orienting the user, discovering fields, and submitting with consent and confirmation. There are no obvious dead ends, since submit_enquiry handles both validation and final confirmation.