enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Care Inspectorate Registration 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 disclosure burden, and it does so by spelling out the output contents of the tool: every field's key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. It also reveals the downstream behavior of associating field keys with submit_enquiry answers. It does not explicitly label the operation as read-only, but the content makes that clear.
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?
Two sentences with no filler: the first front-loads a complete field inventory, and the second provides the connection to submit_enquiry. Every sentence earns its place.
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 metadata tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it defines the field structure and the intended consumer. The only gap is that it does not disambiguate from enquiry_describe, so the agent must infer the boundary between those siblings.
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 accepts zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds relevant semantic context by mentioning that answers are submitted keyed by field key, even though no parameter details are needed.
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 Care Inspectorate Registration enquiry — and enumerates exactly what each field contains (key, label, type, required, help text, options). It does not use an explicit verb like 'lists' or 'returns', and it distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry but not from the sibling enquiry_describe.
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 second sentence gives direct, actionable usage guidance: pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, making the intended workflow explicit. It does not state when not to use it or mention the enquiry_describe alternative, so it falls just short of full guidance.
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: enquiry_describe explains the process, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the actual submission. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
The enquiry_ prefix creates a clear family for describe and fields, and submit_enquiry clearly identifies the action. However, the verb/noun ordering is reversed between enquiry_describe and submit_enquiry, a minor inconsistency.
Three tools are exactly right for this narrow, self-contained workflow: understand the process, see the required fields, and submit with confirmation. Nothing feels redundant or missing.
The tool surface fully covers the stated purpose of starting a Care Inspectorate Registration enquiry, including schema discovery and a two-step confirmation flow. No additional operations appear necessary for the domain.