enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Compressed Air Servicing 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 states what the tool exposes: every field's key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. It also explains how the returned data should be used, adding practical behavioral context beyond a simple listing. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or return format, but the low-risk, informational nature is strongly implied.
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 with no wasted words. The first sentence enumerates the full content of the returned fields; the second provides the key integration hint. The structure is front-loaded with the core description and ends with actionable guidance.
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 informational tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is largely complete. It covers what is returned and how to use it with the sibling submit_enquiry. It could additionally mention the relationship to enquiry_describe, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.
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 schema coverage is effectively 100%, so parameter documentation is not needed. The description adds value by explaining that the output fields serve as keys for submit_enquiry, which is more useful than any parameter-level detail could be.
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 ('Every field of the Compressed Air Servicing enquiry') and specifies the content (key, label, type, required, help text, options). It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'lists', but the title and context make the tool's function unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by positioning this as the source of field keys.
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 useful usage guidance: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key.' This implies when to use this tool—before submitting—but does not explicitly explain when to prefer it over enquiry_describe or mention any exclusions. The alternative tool is referenced indirectly through submit_enquiry rather than direct comparison.
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 role: enquiry_describe explains the process, enquiry_fields provides the input schema, and submit_enquiry performs the submission. There is slight potential confusion between the two informational tools, but their descriptions clearly separate 'what happens' from 'what fields to use.'
Tool names use a consistent snake_case style, but the structure varies: enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields are noun-first, while submit_enquiry is verb-first. The names remain readable and predictable enough, though the ordering inconsistency is noticeable.
Three tools is well-scoped for a narrow enquiry-submission workflow. Each tool earns its place: process explanation, field schema, and submission with confirmation handling. No redundant or unnecessary tools are present.
The set fully supports the intended workflow: an agent can learn about the process, retrieve the required fields, validate and submit an enquiry, and handle the two-step consent flow. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for this domain.