enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the CIW 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a metadata/inspection operation and describes the output, but it does not explicitly state that the call is read-only or has no side effects. This is adequate for a zero-parameter field-listing tool 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?
The description is two dense, purposeful sentences with no wasted words. The core output description is front-loaded, and the integration hint follows immediately.
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?
With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned attributes and the intended downstream use. It could be slightly more explicit about the response shape or read-only nature, but for a simple zero-parameter metadata tool it is substantially complete.
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 and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is no missing parameter documentation. The description adds useful context about how the returned field keys relate to submit_enquiry, which goes beyond the empty schema.
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 every field of the CIW Registration enquiry and enumerates the returned attributes: key, label, type, required, help text, and allowed options. It also distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by explaining that answers are submitted using the field keys this tool provides.
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 actionable guidance: fetch the fields first, then pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling enquiry_describe or state when this tool should be avoided.
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 explains the process, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the submission. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
The names are readable and mostly follow a pattern, but they are not perfectly consistent: enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields use the object-first style, while submit_enquiry uses verb-first. Still, the pattern is predictable and unlikely to confuse an agent.
Three tools is well-scoped for this server's narrow purpose of submitting a CIW Registration enquiry. Each tool has a necessary and distinct role with no redundancy.
The tool set covers the full enquiry lifecycle: understanding the process, retrieving the required fields, and submitting with the two-step confirmation flow. No obvious gaps exist for the stated domain.