enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Trades SEO Agency 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, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior, and it does so by naming the complete set of returned attributes. It clearly implies a read-only schema discovery operation with no side effects. It does not explicitly state that it makes no changes or require no special authorization, but the content and wording strongly signal a non-mutating lookup.
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 with no filler. The first sentence front-loads exactly what the tool returns, and the second sentence adds the essential downstream usage tip. Every part 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 metadata tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what will be returned and how to use that information with submit_enquiry. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call this tool correctly.
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 is empty with zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately avoids inventing unnecessary parameter details.
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 ('every field of the Trades SEO Agency enquiry') and enumerates exactly what is exposed: key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. It is distinguishable from siblings like submit_enquiry and compare_table by focusing purely on the enquiry's field definitions. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'get', so the action is only implied, not stated.
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 second sentence provides direct usage context: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key,' which tells an agent how the output connects to the sibling submission tool. This implies the tool should be used to discover the field structure before submitting. It does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool in favor of siblings like enquiry_describe or compare_criteria, but the keyed-submission guidance is valuable.
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.
The six tools split cleanly into two clear groups: three comparison-read tools (criteria, options, table) and three enquiry-flow tools (describe, fields, submit). Each tool has a distinct responsibility, and the descriptions make it obvious which one to call for a given need.
The naming is mostly consistent and predictable, using clear prefixes like compare_ and enquiry_. The main deviation is that submit_enquiry is verb-first while compare_criteria, compare_options, and compare_table are noun-first, which is a minor but noticeable inconsistency.
Six tools is a well-scoped size for a server that covers a comparison view plus an enquiry submission flow. Each tool earns its place, and there is no redundancy or bloat.
The comparison surface is complete: agents can see criteria, options, and the full value table. The enquiry surface is also complete with an orientation tool, a schema tool, and a two-step submission tool, so there are no obvious dead ends.