enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Cold Room Installation 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 full burden of explaining behavior. It clearly states what the tool returns and that the output contains field metadata, but it does not explicitly note that the tool is read-only, whether authentication is needed, or how the fields are structured in the response. For a simple field-listing tool 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?
The description is a single sentence that immediately states the resource and enumerates the exact contents without filler. It also includes the important connection to submit_enquiry without adding unnecessary detail.
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 no-parameter introspection tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential information an agent needs: what fields are returned and how to use them. It does not explicitly describe the response container or mention the sibling enquiry_describe, but it is still sufficiently complete for correct invocation and use.
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. There are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify or compensate for, and the description contains no parameter-related ambiguity.
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 precisely identifies the resource: 'Every field of the Cold Room Installation Cost enquiry' and lists exactly what information is exposed (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). It also differentiates the tool from the sibling submit_enquiry by explaining that returned keys are meant to key answers to that tool.
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 provides a clear downstream usage instruction: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key,' which tells the agent how the field keys should be used. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over enquiry_describe or provide any exclusion criteria.
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: describe explains the process, fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs submission. There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between them.
Tool names are readable but follow mixed conventions: enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields put the noun first, while submit_enquiry uses a verb-first pattern. A consistent verb_noun style such as describe_enquiry, get_enquiry_fields, and submit_enquiry would improve predictability.
Three tools is exactly right for this server's scope: one to explain the submission behavior, one to provide the required field schema, and one to perform the actual submission. Each tool earns its place.
The server covers the full enquiry lifecycle: understanding what happens, retrieving the required fields, and submitting with a two-step confirmation flow. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated purpose.