enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the BNG Quotes 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 burden. It communicates an introspection-style behavior by describing the field definitions the tool exposes, and the guidance to 'pass answers to submit_enquiry' implies this tool itself does not submit. It does not explicitly state 'read-only' or describe the response container, but the phrasing sufficiently conveys a non-mutating schema lookup.
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 efficient sentence with the core subject front-loaded. Every phrase adds value: the resource, the enumerated metadata fields, and the relationship to submit_enquiry. There is no redundant or filler 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 zero-parameter introspection tool without an output schema, the description adequately explains what information will be available and how to use it. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly describing the return shape or by mentioning how enquiry_describe relates, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.
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 to document. The description still adds useful semantic context by explaining that the returned field keys are the values to use when calling submit_enquiry, which helps the agent connect this tool's output to the next step.
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 BNG Quotes enquiry') and enumerates the exact attributes returned: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It also connects this tool to submit_enquiry, but it does not explicitly contrast it with the sibling enquiry_describe, so it stops just short of fully distinguishing from all siblings.
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 gives clear workflow guidance: fetch the field metadata here, then pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. This implies when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly state exclusions or directly discuss when to prefer enquiry_describe.
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 covers a separate concern: explaining the process, providing the field schema, and submitting the enquiry. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
The names are readable but not consistently patterned: enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields place the noun first, while submit_enquiry uses verb-first convention. This mix is understandable but lacks a uniform scheme.
Three tools is exactly right for the narrow scope of submitting an enquiry. Each tool serves a clear and necessary purpose with no redundancy.
The tool set fully covers the enquiry workflow: orientation, field discovery, validation, consent, and confirmation. There are no obvious missing operations for the stated domain.