enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the STR Rules Check 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 usefully implies this is a read-only metadata retrieval operation and distinguishes it from submit_enquiry by directing answers there. It does not disclose authentication requirements, error behavior, or response format, but for a zero-parameter metadata tool the implied behavior is reasonably clear.
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 first sentence enumerates the tool's output content, and the second connects it to the sibling tool that consumes those keys. Every sentence 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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers what the agent receives by naming the field attributes and the key relationship to submit_enquiry. It is complete enough for a simple, zero-parameter retrieval tool, though it does not describe response formatting or edge cases.
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 baseline of 4 applies. The description adds relevant conceptual meaning by explaining that the returned field keys should be used as answer keys in submit_enquiry, which is more useful than the empty schema alone.
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 resource — the fields of the STR Rules Check enquiry — and enumerates exactly what is included: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'lists' or 'returns', but the meaning is unambiguous and it is distinct from the submit_enquiry sibling.
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 workflow context by saying 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key,' which implies this tool is used to discover the available fields before submitting. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over related siblings like enquiry_describe or checker_tree, nor does it state any exclusions.
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 role: checker_start initializes the guide, checker_answer progresses through it, and checker_tree provides the full end-to-end map. Similarly, enquiry_describe explains the process, enquiry_fields supplies the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the submission. No two tools are easily confused.
Tool names are grouped by domain prefixes (checker_ and enquiry_), but the suffixes mix verbs and nouns (start, answer, tree, describe, fields) and submit_enquiry breaks the prefix pattern. This is readable and predictable but lacks a single consistent verb_noun convention.
With six tools, the set is well within the ideal range and appropriately sized for two connected functions: a decision guide and an enquiry submission flow. Each tool covers one necessary step without redundancy or bloat.
The checker tools cover the full interaction lifecycle: starting the guide, answering step-by-step, and viewing the entire tree. The enquiry tools cover explanation, field specification, and the two-step submission process, so there are no obvious gaps for the stated domain.