enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Commercial Kitchen 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?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what data is exposed and how it should be used, but it never explicitly states that invoking this tool is a read-only, side-effect-free lookup; that is left to inference from the field-metadata framing.
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 tightly written sentences cover both the output content and the downstream usage. The core statement about every field is front-loaded, and no filler or redundant schema repetition is present.
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 tool with no output schema, the description enumerates the returned field attributes and links them to the sibling submission flow. It is complete enough for a simple metadata lookup, though an explicit statement of the output shape or read-only nature would make it fully unambiguous.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter ambiguity; the baseline for this case is 4. The description adds useful semantic context by explaining that field keys from this tool are the identifiers to use when calling submit_enquiry.
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 this tool exposes every field of the Commercial Kitchen Cost enquiry, along with key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It does not use an explicit verb like 'returns' and does not distinguish itself from the sibling enquiry_describe, so it falls just short of a 5.
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 to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key gives clear downstream context for when this tool's output is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know this is a prerequisite for building a submission.
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 distinct, non-overlapping role: one explains the overall process, one describes the field schema, and one performs the validated two-step submission. Even the two informational tools are clearly separated by purpose.
All names use snake_case and the enquiry prefix, but word order is inconsistent: enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields are noun-first while submit_enquiry is verb-first. This is readable but not a clean verb_noun convention.
With only three tools, the set is tightly scoped to the single enquiry submission workflow. Each tool earns its place and there is no bloat.
The tools cover the full enquiry flow: orientation, required schema, then two-step consent/confirm submission. No obvious dead ends or missing operations within the stated purpose.