enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the CCTV Drain Survey 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, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It clearly indicates this is a metadata retrieval operation and enumerates the returned content, but it does not explicitly state that calling it has no side effects or describe the response structure. This is adequate but not fully transparent.
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 core meaning is front-loaded, and the cross-reference to submit_enquiry is compact and actionable.
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 lookup with no output schema, the description tells an agent exactly what information is returned and how to use it. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation or interpretation.
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, so there is nothing for the description to explain. Per the baseline for tools with no parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb and resource: it lists every field of the CCTV Drain Survey Cost enquiry, including key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. It also distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by explaining that its field keys are used to key the answers for submission.
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 clear practical guidance: pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, implying this tool should be used first to discover the fields. It does not explicitly mention enquiry_describe or state when not to use it, but the usage context is clear enough.
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 executes the submission. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tools clearly reference 'enquiry', but word order varies: enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields put 'enquiry' first, while submit_enquiry puts it last. This is a minor deviation from a fully consistent verb_noun pattern.
Three tools is well-scoped for a focused enquiry submission flow: one to understand the process, one to provide fields, and one to submit. Each tool earns its place and there is no bloat.
The tool set covers the entire enquiry lifecycle, from explanation and field schema to submission with a two-step confirmation. No obvious gaps exist for the stated purpose.