enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Texas Water Damage 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's informational nature by enumerating the field attributes returned. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or that no side effects occur, which would have strengthened behavioral transparency for an agent with no annotation support.
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 sentences, front-loads the core purpose and contents, and then adds a concise workflow pointer to submit_enquiry. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or padding.
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 field-listing tool, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what data will be returned, that no arguments are needed, and how the results connect to submit_enquiry. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the explicit enumeration of returned attributes.
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 properties and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. With no parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds no param info, but none is needed.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: it lists every field of the Texas Water Damage Cost enquiry, including key, label, type, required status, help text, and options. It clearly distinguishes this from submit_enquiry by explaining that answers should be passed to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. This is specific and actionable.
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 clear context for when to use this tool: before submitting answers, to learn the available fields and keys. It also names submit_enquiry as the destination for the returned keys. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare against enquiry_describe, but the intended workflow is clear.
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 distinct role: enquiry_describe explains the process, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the actual submission. There is no functional overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tool names use snake_case and share the 'enquiry' domain prefix, making them easy to group. However, submit_enquiry is verb-first while enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields are noun-first, a minor inconsistency.
Three tools is exactly right for this narrow, single-purpose enquiry submission flow. Each tool is necessary and there is no bloat or redundancy.
The tool set covers the full workflow: reading about the process, fetching field definitions, and submitting with a two-step confirmation. There are no obvious dead ends or missing steps for the stated purpose.