enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Battery Storage 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 behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the response contents (key, label, type, required, help text, options), which is the core behavioral trait for a form-schema lookup tool. It does not explicitly state that the operation is a read-only lookup or describe the output container, but the read-oriented nature is strongly implied.
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 a single well-structured sentence that front-loads the resource, lists the returned field attributes, and ends with actionable cross-tool guidance. There is no filler or redundant content.
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 parameterless lookup tool, the description covers what the agent will receive and how to use that output with submit_enquiry. The only minor gaps are not explicitly describing the output format (e.g., array of objects) and not differentiating from enquiry_describe, but these are not critical for successful invocation.
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 input schema confirms this, so there is no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description correctly does not invent parameter guidance.
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 (Battery Storage Cost enquiry fields) and enumerates the exact content each field entry contains: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It is distinct from submit_enquiry by nature, though it does not explicitly name enquiry_describe as a sibling alternative.
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 final sentence tells the agent to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, which establishes a clear workflow connection. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over enquiry_describe nor list exclusions.
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 unique, clearly separated role: one explains the process, one provides the field schema, and one submits the enquiry. There is no overlap or risk of selecting the wrong tool.
Names are readable and all snake_case, but the pattern is mixed: enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields are noun-first while submit_enquiry is verb-first. A more consistent set would be describe_enquiry, get_enquiry_fields, and submit_enquiry.
With three tools covering explanation, schema discovery, and submission, the set is tightly scoped for a single enquiry flow. Each tool earns its place and the count is not excessive.
The tools cover the full required lifecycle: understanding the enquiry, obtaining valid fields, and submitting with a two-step confirmation. No obvious missing operation is needed for this narrow domain.