enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Which M&A Advisor 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 content (fields and attributes) but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, safe, or mention any potential side effects or limitations. It is not a contradiction, but it is not fully transparent about behavior.
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?
A single, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists the field attributes, then gives a direct usage hint. There is no wasted language; every part adds value.
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 simple retrieval tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers what is returned and how to use it. It does not specify the exact output format (e.g., list vs. object), but given the simplicity, this is not a critical gap.
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 schema coverage is trivially 100%. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics because there are none, but it does relate the output to submit_enquiry usage, which is contextually helpful.
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 states that this tool retrieves every field of the 'Which M&A Advisor' enquiry, listing specific attributes (key, label, type, required, help text, options). This is a specific verb-like 'get' and resource, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like submit_enquiry and compare_* by focusing on field metadata.
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 a clear usage pattern: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key.' This tells the agent when to use this tool (to obtain field structure before submitting) and ties it to a sibling. It does not explicitly say when not to use it, but the context is clear enough.
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 targets a clearly separate concern: comparison criteria, comparison options, the full comparison table, the enquiry explanation, the enquiry field schema, and submission. There is no real overlap or ambiguous boundary between any of the six tools.
The compare_* and enquiry_* prefixes give some structure, but the pattern is inconsistent: compare_criteria and compare_table use a verb-like prefix while enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields use noun-first naming, and submit_enquiry breaks the enquiry_ prefix convention. The names remain readable but do not follow a single predictable pattern.
Six tools is a well-scoped count for this server's purpose: three tools expose a comparison, two describe the enquiry form and flow, and one submits the enquiry. Nothing feels redundant or missing at the tool-count level.
The server covers the full apparent lifecycle for its purpose: users can inspect the comparison criteria, available options, the full comparison table, understand what submitting an enquiry does, see all required fields, and submit with a two-step confirmation. No obvious dead ends or missing operations exist for the stated domain.