enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Borehole Drilling 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?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It states what content is returned and how it should be used, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly say whether the tool is a safe read-only operation or describe the return shape/format, so some behavioral transparency is left unstated.
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, dense sentence that lists the returned attributes and immediately gives the relevant usage pointer to submit_enquiry. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy.
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 that the tool has no input parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what the tool returns, the semantics of each field, and how to use those fields when calling submit_enquiry. Nothing essential is missing.
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 baseline for zero parameters is 4. There is no parameter information to add, and the description appropriately focuses on the output and downstream usage rather than inventing parameter detail.
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 ('Every field of the Borehole Drilling Cost enquiry') and enumerates exactly what information is included: key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. It does not use an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get,' but the meaning is unambiguous and distinct from the submit_enquiry sibling.
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 gives practical guidance: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key.' This tells the agent how to use the output and connects the tool to its sibling. It does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over enquiry_describe, but the purpose is clear enough to imply the correct context.
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: one explains the enquiry process, one provides the schema, and one performs the submission. There is no meaningful overlap between them.
All tool names share the 'enquiry' prefix, but the pattern is inconsistent: 'enquiry_describe' is noun-verb, 'enquiry_fields' is noun-noun, and 'submit_enquiry' is verb-noun. Still readable and clearly related.
Three tools are exactly right for this narrow enquiry-submission flow: one to explain, one to define the schema, and one to submit. Each tool earns its place.
The tool set fully covers the enquiry lifecycle within its stated domain: describing the process, retrieving field requirements, and submitting with consent confirmation. There are no obvious dead ends.