enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Which Field Software 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 clarifies that this is a metadata/schema lookup tied to submit_enquiry and scopes the returned fields, but it does not explicitly state that calling it has no side effects or describe response behavior beyond the field list.
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 sentences with no filler. The first states the full scope of the payload, and the second connects it to the submission tool. 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?
For a parameterless metadata tool, the description covers what is returned and how to use it. It could be more explicit about the return shape or mention when to prefer the compare_* siblings, but those are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.
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, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful context by noting that answers must be keyed by field key, which informs how the returned data will be used with 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 resource (Which Field Software enquiry fields) and enumerates what is returned: key, label, type, whether required, help text, and allowed options. It lacks an explicit verb like 'gets' or 'lists' and does not explicitly contrast with sibling comparison tools, so it falls just short of a 5.
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 line 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' places the tool in a clear workflow: call it to discover field keys before submitting answers. It does not state when not to use it or mention the compare_* siblings, but the intended context is evident.
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 comparison tools are cleanly separated by role: criteria are the dimensions, options are the entities, and the table is the cross-product. The enquiry tools are also distinct: describe explains the process, fields gives the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the action. There is no meaningful overlap between any pair.
The comparison tools follow a consistent compare_ prefix with noun objects, while the enquiry tools are mostly enquiry_ prefixed except for submit_enquiry. This grouping is recognizable but not a single uniform verb_noun pattern across the entire set. The deviation is minor and does not cause confusion.
At six tools, the server is tightly scoped to its two core functions: running a comparison and handling enquiries. Every tool has a distinct purpose and none feel redundant or missing. The count is appropriate for a focused site-specific server.
The comparison surface fully covers the domain: criteria, options, and the full results table. The enquiry surface covers the entire lifecycle from describing the process and field schema to the two-step confirmation submission. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated functionality.