enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Confined Space Training 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 provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It specifies exactly the kind of data returned (field metadata and options) and how the output should be used with submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly state that this is read-only, but the content description makes the non-mutating nature evident.
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 tight sentences deliver the full scope of the tool in order: first the returned field attributes, then the downstream usage. No filler or repetition of the tool name or title.
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 metadata tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It names the specific enquiry, enumerates the returned field properties, and connects the output to submit_enquiry. A minor gap is not explicitly describing the output container or format, but that is not essential for correct invocation.
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?
There are zero parameters and the schema coverage is effectively 100%, so the schema places no burden on the description. The description adds relevant conceptual semantics by explaining that keys are meant to be used when passing answers to 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 identifies the resource (the Confined Space Training Cost enquiry) and the content delivered: every field with key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It stops short of an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'lists,' but the meaning is unambiguous and distinct from siblings like submit_enquiry.
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 gives actionable usage context: answers for submit_enquiry should be keyed by the field keys returned by this tool. It does not explicitly contrast with enquiry_describe, but it clearly establishes the relationship to submit_enquiry and implies this is the lookup step before submitting.
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 serves a clearly distinct function: one describes the process, one provides field definitions, and one submits the enquiry. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
The names mix patterns: two use an 'enquiry_' prefix (enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields) while one uses a '_enquiry' suffix (submit_enquiry). All are lowercase with underscores, but the inconsistent verb/noun ordering prevents a fully predictable pattern.
With only 3 tools, the server is tightly scoped to its single purpose of submitting an enquiry. Each tool is necessary and there is no bloat, making the count ideal for this narrow domain.
The tool surface fully covers the enquiry lifecycle: understanding the process, retrieving required fields, and submitting with a two-step confirmation. There are no obvious missing operations for the stated purpose.