enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the SR&ED Finder 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only metadata retrieval that returns all fields, but it does not explicitly state that there are no side effects, nor does it describe error behavior or output structure. Adequate for a simple query tool, but not rich.
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 tight sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads what the tool returns, and the second sentence adds the direct usage link. 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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema metadata tool, the description covers what is returned and how to use it with submit_enquiry. It lacks an explicit statement of the response shape (e.g., array vs map), but the listed attributes and the pointer to field keys give the agent enough to proceed confidently.
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 zero parameters and 100% schema coverage (empty schema), so there is no parameter burden. The description still adds semantic value by explaining that returned field keys are the keys to use for answers to submit_enquiry, which goes beyond the bare schema.
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 returns: every field of the SR&ED Finder enquiry, and enumerates the attributes (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). This is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like submit_enquiry, though it doesn't explicitly name any alternative.
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 actionable usage context by instructing the agent to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. However, it does not explicitly say when this tool is preferred over sibling tools like enquiry_describe or compare_* tools, leaving the selection rationale mostly implied.
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: the three compare tools focus on criteria, options, and the full comparison table respectively, while the three enquiry tools cover description, fields, and submission. There is no ambiguity between them.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (compare_criteria, submit_enquiry), but the enquiry_* tools use a noun_verb pattern (enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields), which is a minor deviation from an otherwise consistent style.
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of comparing SR&ED claim preparation options and submitting enquiries. Each tool earns its place without redundancy or bloat.
The tool set provides complete coverage for the domain: comparison is fully covered with criteria, options, and a full table, and the enquiry workflow is complete with description, field definitions, and a two-step submission process. No obvious gaps exist.