enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Class Q 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does this well by listing exactly what field attributes are returned and noting that allowed options appear only where they exist. It also reveals the cross-tool contract with submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly say the operation has no side effects, but the metadata-oriented wording makes that clear enough.
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, no filler. The core output description is front-loaded, and the integration note about submit_enquiry earns its place by explaining how the returned keys are used.
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 parameterless introspection tool, the description is nearly complete: it states the returned content and the downstream consumer. It does not specify whether the response is a list or a keyed map, which an output schema would normally clarify, but the essential call contract is clear.
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. The description does not need to explain parameter behavior, and it does not confuse the parameterless call with the submit_enquiry payload it mentions.
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 identifies the resource precisely ('the Class Q Checker enquiry') and enumerates its contents: key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. It is clear what the tool exposes, but it lacks an explicit action verb like 'List' or 'Return' and does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as 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' provides a concrete usage context: this tool supplies the field keys needed when submitting an enquiry. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare alternatives, but the integration note gives an agent enough situational 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.
The checker tools are separated by interactive progression (start/answer) versus full-tree reasoning, and the enquiry tools cleanly separate documentation, schema, and submission. The only mild overlap is that checker_tree also contains all questions and verdicts, so an agent could use it to bypass the step-by-step tools.
All names are snake_case and grouped by domain prefix (checker_*, enquiry_*), but word order and parts of speech are mixed: checker_start and checker_answer are imperative, checker_tree and enquiry_fields are nouns, enquiry_describe is object-verb, and submit_enquiry is verb-object. This is readable but not a consistent pattern.
Six tools are well-scoped for the two workflows: three for the eligibility decision guide and three for the enquiry submission process. No tool feels redundant or missing at the count level.
The decision guide has start, step-through, and full-tree coverage, while the enquiry flow has a describe-first explanation, field schema, and a two-step submission with confirmation token. There are no obvious dead ends for the stated purpose.