enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Contractor Pay Calculator 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what content is returned but does not state the return format (array vs object), whether authentication is required, or that the operation is read-only. Given the tool's simple informational nature, these gaps are acceptable but leave some uncertainty.
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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core content and followed by a practical usage pointer. Every sentence earns its place; 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 no-parameter metadata tool, the description is nearly complete: it lists the field attributes, mentions allowed options, and connects to submit_enquiry. The absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by listing the returned attributes, though it stops short of describing whether results are a list or keyed object.
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 accepts zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously), so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details because there are none, but it usefully explains that output field keys are meant to be used as keys in submit_enquiry, which clarifies the relationship without describing parameters of this tool.
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 (fields of the Contractor Pay Calculator enquiry) and the data exposed (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). It lacks an explicit verb like 'lists' or 'returns', but the colon structure and content make the purpose clear. It is distinguishable from sibling tools such as submit_enquiry and enquiry_describe through its focus on field metadata.
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 direct usage guidance: pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. This tells the agent how to apply the returned data and implies the tool is for fetching field metadata before submission. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with enquiry_describe, but the context is sufficient.
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: calculate runs the calculator, calculator_describe documents it, while enquiry_describe explains the enquiry flow, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the submission. There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between them.
Names are readable and mostly follow a noun-oriented pattern for descriptive tools (calculator_describe, enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields) with action verbs for operations (calculate, submit_enquiry). The main inconsistency is that calculate is a bare verb while calculator_describe reverses the verb-noun order, but this is minor and not confusing.
Five tools is well-scoped for this server's purpose: two calculator-related tools and three enquiry-related tools. Each tool has a clear place and none feel redundant or missing.
The surface fully covers the calculator and enquiry workflow: the calculator can be executed and its assumptions inspected, and the enquiry flow includes process documentation, field schema, and a validated two-step submission with consent. No obvious dead ends or missing operations are apparent.