enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Basement Excavation 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, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the returned field metadata and implies read-only intent, but it never explicitly states that this tool has no side effects, nor does it describe the output structure. This is a meaningful gap for a no-annotation tool.
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 with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the exact output content, and the second provides an actionable follow-up. 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?
There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values; it does, enumerating the field attributes. It does not specify whether the result is an array or object or how to handle optional fields, but for a zero-parameter introspection tool with clear routing to submit_enquiry, the coverage is strong.
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 the schema confirms this with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds a semantic link by explaining that returned field keys are used as answers to submit_enquiry, which helps the agent understand the data's purpose.
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 ('the Basement Excavation Cost enquiry') and the content of the result (key, label, type, required, help text, options), which distinguishes it from siblings. It lacks an explicit action verb like 'returns' or 'lists,' though the title and wording make the purpose evident.
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' gives a clear downstream usage context and connects to a sibling tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus enquiry_describe, but the intended use is strongly implied.
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 overlap or ambiguity between them.
Two tools share the enquiry_ prefix, but submit_enquiry inverts the pattern. The names are still clear and obviously related, so this is only a minor consistency deviation.
Three tools are well-scoped for a single enquiry workflow, each serving a necessary and distinct purpose. The set feels appropriately minimal without being thin.
The set covers the full enquiry flow: explaining the process, defining the fields, and handling two-step consent-based submission. There are no obvious missing operations for the stated purpose.