enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Texas Foundation Repair Cost 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 burden of explaining behavior. It discloses what the tool provides: field metadata including allowed options where present, and it connects the result to the submit_enquiry workflow. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or free of side effects, but the metadata-focused content strongly implies it.
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 compact sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core scope, enumerates the relevant field attributes, and ends with a practical, actionable instruction. 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?
Given the absence of an output schema, the description does a good job specifying what the response contains: field keys, labels, types, required flags, help text, and allowed options. It also situates the tool within the larger enquiry workflow. A small gap is the lack of explicit context about how enquiry_describe differs, but this does not prevent correct invocation.
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 the input schema is empty, so the description has no parameter semantics to add. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description usefully clarifies that the returned field keys are the keys to use when calling submit_enquiry.
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 tool as returning every field of the Texas Foundation Repair Cost enquiry along with attributes like key, label, type, and required. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'lists' or 'returns', and it does not distinguish itself from the sibling enquiry_describe beyond the implied focus on fields.
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 guidance: pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by the field key. This makes the intended workflow clear. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus enquiry_describe or provide exclusion criteria.
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: enquiry_describe provides the plain-language overview, enquiry_fields provides the exact field schema, and submit_enquiry handles the actual two-step submission. There is no functional overlap between them.
The names are readable and share the 'enquiry' concept, but the pattern is mixed: enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields use an enquiry_ prefix, while submit_enquiry uses a verb-first convention. This makes the naming slightly inconsistent even though it is not confusing.
Three tools is a well-scoped set for this simple enquiry workflow: orientation, field definitions, and submission. Each tool earns its place and there is no redundancy.
For the stated purpose of submitting an enquiry, the set covers everything needed: understanding the process, retrieving the required fields, and performing the validated two-step submission with consent. There are no obvious gaps or dead ends.