enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the UAE Corporate Tax Calculator 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 disclosure burden. It discloses the return contents and the field-key mapping requirement for later submission. It does not explicitly claim read-only, but the zero-parameter, enumeration-oriented nature makes that implicit, and there is no contradiction.
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 efficient sentences: the first front-loads the complete output contents, the second states downstream usage. No filler, and each 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?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this is complete. It identifies the domain, lists every returned attribute, notes optionality and allowed options, and connects to submit_enquiry. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.
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?
There are no input parameters, so per the rubric this is a baseline 4. The description adds the only relevant semantic tie: the returned field keys are what should be used to key submit_enquiry answers.
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 names a specific resource ('UAE Corporate Tax Calculator enquiry') and a specific output ('key, label, type, whether required, help text and allowed options'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling describe tools by scope: it enumerates fields rather than describing the calculator or enquiry.
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?
It gives clear usage context: retrieve the field definitions, then pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use or contrast with sibling describe tools, so it stops short of a 5.
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: calculate runs the tax computation, calculator_describe documents the calculator, enquiry_describe explains the enquiry process, enquiry_fields defines the input schema, and submit_enquiry handles submission. There is no meaningful overlap between any two tools.
The naming is readable and grouped by domain, but conventions are mixed: calculate is a plain verb, calculator_describe and enquiry_describe use noun_verb order, enquiry_fields is noun_noun, and submit_enquiry is verb_noun. A consistent verb_noun or describe_* pattern would make the set more predictable.
Five tools is an appropriate size for a focused calculator-plus-enquiry server. Each tool covers a distinct piece of the workflow and none feel redundant or decorative.
The calculator side is complete with calculate and calculator_describe, and the enquiry side has field introspection, process disclosure, and two-step submission. The only minor gap is the lack of any post-submission status or history tool, but the flow is designed around email confirmation so this is not a critical omission.