enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Catchment Checker 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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the contents of the returned data and implies a read-only operation by directing mutations to submit_enquiry. Still, it never explicitly states that no side effects occur, nor does it describe output formatting or edge cases.
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 wasted words: the first states what the tool exposes, and the second gives a concrete downstream action. The key information is front-loaded and 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?
This is a simple zero-parameter read-only introspection tool, and the description is complete for that complexity. It explains what will be returned and how the returned field keys are meant to be used with submit_enquiry, which is enough given no output schema exists.
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 takes zero parameters and the empty schema is fully covered. Since there are no parameters, the description does not need to explain parameter behavior; the baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4.
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's resource: every field of the Catchment Checker enquiry, and enumerates the data it exposes: key, label, type, required, help text, and allowed options. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'get', and it does not contrast itself with 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 instruction 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' implies this tool is a prerequisite for submitting answers and should be used to obtain field keys. This is useful context but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusion, or comparison with alternatives like 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 has a clearly distinct role: the checker_* tools handle guide traversal and full-tree reasoning, while enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields, and submit_enquiry separate documentation, metadata, and submission. There is no meaningful overlap that would cause an agent to pick the wrong tool.
The checker_* and enquiry_* prefixes help group the two workflows, but the pattern is not consistent: submit_enquiry breaks the enquiry_ prefix, and verb/noun ordering varies across tools like checker_start and submit_enquiry. The names are still readable and understandable.
Six tools is well-scoped for this server: three cover the decision guide lifecycle and three cover the enquiry submission workflow. Each tool earns its place with no obvious redundancy.
The set fully covers the interactive decision guide from start to verdict and the two-step enquiry submission with consent and confirmation. It also provides field metadata and a plain-language explainer, so no critical workflow step is missing.