enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Campervan Conversion 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 provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It transparently describes the output content and the relationship to submit_enquiry, and it implies a read-only metadata lookup. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe response format, but for this simple field-listing tool the disclosed behavior is adequate.
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 front-loads the core meaning and contains no filler. Every clause earns its place: the resource, the fields covered, and the downstream usage instruction.
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 no-parameter, schema-less metadata tool, the description covers the key information an agent needs: what data is returned, what attributes are included, and how the result connects to submit_enquiry. It is slightly incomplete in not clarifying how this relates to enquiry_describe or describing the exact response container, 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 baseline is 4 as specified. The description adds relevant semantic context about how the tool's output should be used ('Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key'), even though there is no parameter surface to document.
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 states that the tool exposes the fields of the Campervan Conversion Cost enquiry and enumerates the attributes included (key, label, type, required, help text, options). The title reinforces this meaning. It does not begin with an explicit verb like 'Lists' or 'Returns', and it does not contrast itself with enquiry_describe, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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 indirect usage guidance by noting that answers should be submitted to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, implying this tool is used to discover valid keys. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus enquiry_describe or provide any exclusion criteria. Usage is implied rather than stated.
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 purpose: enquiry_describe provides narrative instructions, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the submission. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Two tools share the enquiry_ prefix and a clear noun-based convention, but submit_enquiry reverses the pattern to verb_noun. This is a minor deviation and the names remain predictable.
Three tools is exactly right for this narrow enquiry flow: one to explain, one to describe fields, and one to submit. There is no bloat or missing middle layer.
The full lifecycle is covered: read about the process, fetch field definitions, submit with consent and confirmation. For a simple enquiry submission, there are no obvious gaps.