enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Notice Period Calculator NZ 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 behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool is a complete field listing and positions it as a prerequisite for submit_enquiry rather than a submission endpoint. It does not explicitly mention output formatting or idempotence, but for a zero-parameter metadata getter these are minor.
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, no filler: the first defines the tool's content, the second tells the agent how to use the result. The key usage note comes immediately after the field list.
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?
The description is complete enough for a no-argument metadata tool: it names every data category returned and connects the result to submit_enquiry. It does not describe the exact return envelope, but the absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by the explicit field list.
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 and 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter detail, 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 identifies the resource (all fields of the Notice Period Calculator NZ enquiry) and enumerates the attributes returned (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). It is more specific than the title, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'returns' or 'lists'.
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 states the actionable context: answers are passed to submit_enquiry keyed by the field key, which tells an agent why to call this tool. It does not explicitly compare against siblings like enquiry_describe or state when not to use it.
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.
calculate and calculator_describe are clearly separated as run versus describe. enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields both describe the enquiry mechanic but cover different aspects—purpose/consent versus field schema—and each explicitly references the other, so an agent can keep them apart despite slight overlap.
Names mix a bare verb (calculate), noun+verb in reverse (calculator_describe, enquiry_describe), and verb+noun or noun+noun (submit_enquiry, enquiry_fields). There is no consistent verb_noun or domain_prefix convention, so predicting tool names from the pattern is unreliable.
Five tools is well-scoped for a focused site offering one calculator and one enquiry submission flow. Each tool earns its place: run calculator, describe calculator, describe enquiry flow, list enquiry fields, and submit enquiry.
The calculator surface has both execution and metadata, and the enquiry surface covers explainer, field schema, and the full two-step consent submission flow. There are no obvious missing operations for the stated domain.