enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Abnormal Load Quotes 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 full burden of explaining behavior. It does disclose what information is returned: key, label, type, required, help text, and options. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, what the exact output format is, or any edge cases such as empty option lists or dynamic fields.
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 the full content of the tool, and the second sentence immediately connects the output to the related submission tool. Every clause 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 is largely complete: it identifies the resource, enumerates the returned attributes, and explains how the data should be used with submit_enquiry. It could be slightly more explicit about return structure or differences from enquiry_describe, but those are minor gaps.
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 no parameter semantics because none are needed; the empty schema already makes this clear, and the description reinforces that answers are keyed by field keys rather than by positional arguments.
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 the tool exposes every field of the Abnormal Load Quotes enquiry, enumerating the attributes included: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It separates itself from submit_enquiry by explaining that answers are passed using these field keys, though it does not explicitly contrast with enquiry_describe.
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 instruction 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' implies that this tool should be used to discover the fields needed for submission, which provides useful workflow context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of enquiry_describe or give any exclusions or alternative conditions.
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 separate role: one describes the process, one provides the field schema, and one performs the actual submission. The overlap in content between enquiry_describe and submit_enquiry is intentional and clearly signaled.
All names use snake_case and share the 'enquiry' domain, but the pattern is mixed: enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields are object-first, while submit_enquiry is verb-first. Still readable and predictable enough to navigate.
Three tools is a well-scoped set for a single enquiry submission workflow: orientation, schema, and submission. Each tool earns its place without redundancy.
The core enquiry lifecycle is covered: explain, inspect fields, validate, confirm, and submit. Minor gaps exist around post-submission status tracking or cancelling, but these are not required for the stated purpose.