enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Asbestos Disposal 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what fields are included, but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only metadata lookup, nor describe return structure or side effects. This is adequate for a no-parameter field listing, but it leaves the safety profile and precise output shape implicit.
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 compact: two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the resource and the specific field attributes, and the second sentence adds actionable integration guidance. It could be slightly stronger with an explicit retrieval verb, but the phrasing is efficient.
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?
Given the low complexity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential information: what the tool returns and how the output relates to submit_enquiry. It does not describe the exact JSON shape or mention enquiry_describe as an alternative, but for a simple field-metadata tool this is mostly sufficient.
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 input schema is empty and there is nothing for the description to add. Per the calibration guidance, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4 here.
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 ('Asbestos Disposal Cost enquiry') and enumerates what the tool exposes: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'lists', but 'Every field of...' strongly implies returning the field metadata. It differentiates from submit_enquiry by explaining that answers should be keyed by field key, though it does not 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' provides clear context for when and how to use this tool's output. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it with enquiry_describe, so it misses a direct alternative or exclusion clause.
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 completely distinct role: one explains the enquiry process, one provides the field schema, and one submits the enquiry. There is no overlap or plausible confusion between them.
Two tools use an enquiry_ prefix in noun-first style (enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields), while the third uses a verb-first style (submit_enquiry). All names are readable and snake_case-consistent, but the pattern is not uniform.
Three tools is exactly the right scope for this server: a process explainer, a field catalog, and a submission action. Each tool earns its place and there is no bloat.
The tool surface fully covers the enquiry flow: understanding the process, retrieving required fields, and submitting with a mandatory confirmation token. There are no obvious gaps for the stated purpose.