enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Asbestos Removal Costs 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 and does a reasonable job: it enumerates the returned field attributes and implies a read-only introspection tool by directing answer-passing to submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects, but nothing in the wording suggests mutation, and the sibling reference clarifies its role.
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 single sentence front-loads the resource and then delivers a compact, enumerated list of returned attributes. The final clause about passing answers to submit_enquiry earns its place by linking the output to a sibling tool. No filler or redundant wording.
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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the returned data and the follow-on usage with submit_enquiry. The only omissions are an explicit read-only statement and the exact output shape, but 'Every field' implies a list of field objects. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
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 the empty schema provides no information. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that the field keys are intended to be used as answer keys in submit_enquiry, which connects the output to a parameterized workflow. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.
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 specifies exactly what the tool returns: every field of the Asbestos Removal Costs enquiry with key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. The reference to submit_enquiry clearly differentiates this from the submission sibling, and the title reinforces the purpose.
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 clearly tells the agent that this tool is the source of field keys to use when calling submit_enquiry, providing direct workflow context. It does not explicitly state when to choose this over enquiry_describe, but the field-focused content implies the right scenario. No misleading exclusions are present.
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 distinct role: one explains the process, one provides the field schema, and one performs the submission. There is no meaningful overlap in purpose.
Two tools use the enquiry_ prefix but one is verb-final and the other noun-final, while the third tool uses a verb-first pattern. The naming conventions are mixed and not consistently aligned.
Three tools are well-scoped for a focused enquiry-submission workflow, and each tool serves a necessary step without redundancy.
The tools cover the full enquiry lifecycle: explaining the process, discovering required fields, and submitting with a two-step confirmation. No critical operations are missing for this narrow domain.