enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Access Control Cost 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 behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states what the tool returns and enumerates the output contents, which is strong for an introspection endpoint. It does not explicitly say 'read-only' or 'no side effects', but the wording 'Every field of the enquiry' conveys a non-mutating lookup clearly.
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 exact output content, and the second sentence gives a critical usage pointer to submit_enquiry. Every word 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 simple no-parameter introspection tool, the description is complete. It names the specific enquiry, lists the return fields, and explains how to use the result with submit_enquiry. Since there is no output schema, the description successfully carries the burden of explaining what the agent will receive.
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 takes zero parameters, so parameter semantics are a non-issue. The description still adds value by explaining how the output's field keys should be used as parameter keys in submit_enquiry. With no parameters and an empty schema, the baseline of 4 is appropriate and the description provides no unnecessary parameter syntax.
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 defines the tool as returning every field of the Access Control Cost enquiry, enumerating the exact attributes: key, label, type, required, help text, and allowed options. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like enquiry_describe by focusing on the field-level schema rather than the enquiry as a whole.
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 provides clear context by explaining that answers should be passed to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, which tells an agent why this tool matters and how its output connects to a sibling tool. It does not explicitly contrast with enquiry_describe, but the usage context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select this tool when it needs field definitions.
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: enquiry_describe explains the process, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the submission. There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between them.
All names use snake_case and center on 'enquiry', but the pattern is mixed: enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields are noun-first while submit_enquiry is verb-first. This is readable but not a consistent verb_noun convention.
Three tools is well-scoped for the server's narrow purpose of submitting an enquiry. Each tool earns its place by covering a distinct stage of the workflow.
The tool set fully covers the enquiry submission workflow: orientation, schema discovery, initial validation, and confirmed submission via token. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated domain.