enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Business Grants Finder 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly describes what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation with no side effects, nor does it mention any limitations or error behavior. The content is accurate and useful, but the absence of an explicit read-only statement is a small gap.
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 two sentences long with no wasted words. The first sentence defines the return value precisely, and the second sentence connects it to the submission workflow. The most actionable information is front-loaded.
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?
The description is complete enough for a simple metadata-retrieval tool, especially since there is no input schema and no output schema to lean on. It explains the contents of the response and how to use it. It could benefit from a small example or an explicit note that it performs no submission, but the prose already covers the essential context.
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 there is nothing for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed, and the description meaningfully explains how the output relates to submit_enquiry.
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 tool as returning metadata about every field in the Business Grants Finder enquiry, listing the specific attributes (key, label, type, required, help text, options). The title reinforces this. It does not use an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'list', and it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling enquiry_describe, so it stops short of a 5.
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 practical usage guidance by telling the agent to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. This implies the tool should be consulted before submitting answers. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it differs from enquiry_describe, but the guidance is sufficient for the common workflow.
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 role: checker_start initializes the guide, checker_answer advances it, and checker_tree exposes the full decision tree. On the enquiry side, enquiry_describe explains the process, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the submission. There is no meaningful overlap between tools.
Tool names consistently use snake_case and workflow prefixes (checker_ vs enquiry_), which makes grouping easy. However, the grammatical pattern varies: some are noun-led (checker_answer, checker_tree), some verb-led (checker_start, submit_enquiry), and enquiry_describe/enquiry_fields mix the two. This is a minor deviation rather than a chaotic naming scheme.
Six tools is well-scoped for the server's two linked workflows: navigating an eligibility decision guide and submitting a Business Grants Finder enquiry. Each tool earns its place, and there is no redundancy or excessive split.
The checker surface provides start, step-by-step navigation, and full tree visibility, while the enquiry surface covers process explanation, field schema, and the two-step consent-based submission. Together they cover the full user journey from eligibility assessment to enquiry submission with no obvious dead ends.