enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Commercial EPC 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 discloses the contents of the result (field metadata), which is the key behavioral aspect for an enquiry-fields tool. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, has no side effects, or describe the exact response shape, but the described content strongly implies a safe metadata lookup.
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 compact and well-structured: the first sentence enumerates the returned field attributes, and the second sentence gives a concrete usage direction connected to submit_enquiry. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.
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 tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what will be returned and how the results should be used. It tells the agent the field key is the link to submit_enquiry, which is exactly the contextual information needed to invoke the tool effectively.
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 parameter semantics are not applicable; the baseline of 4 is appropriate. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed since there is nothing to pass in.
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 resource (the Commercial EPC Cost enquiry) and the content of the result (each field's key, label, type, requiredness, help text, and allowed options). However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'return', and it does not directly distinguish itself from the sibling enquiry_describe, though the field-level detail makes the intent mostly clear.
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 should be used to discover the fields needed to submit an enquiry, which is useful contextual guidance. However, there is no explicit statement about when to use this tool versus enquiry_describe, and no exclusion or alternative is mentioned.
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 performs the submission. No two tools overlap in purpose, so an agent should be able to select the right one without ambiguity.
All names are lowercase snake_case and share the 'enquiry' domain, but the pattern is mixed: enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields place the noun first, while submit_enquiry places the verb first. The naming is readable but not as consistent as a uniform verb_noun convention.
Three tools is an appropriate scope for a single enquiry-submission workflow: one to orient, one to define the fields, and one to submit. Each tool earns its place without unnecessary redundancy.
The tool set covers the full enquiry lifecycle from understanding the process and schema to two-step submission with consent confirmation. There are no obvious missing operations for the narrow commercial EPC cost enquiry domain.