enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the CQC Registration Checker 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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses what content the tool exposes and how the result relates to submit_enquiry, which is valuable context. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe the exact response shape, but for a parameterless metadata-listing tool these are minor gaps.
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 dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The field attribute list is compact, and the cross-reference to submit_enquiry is a single useful clause that earns its place.
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-argument, no-annotation metadata tool, the description gives a complete inventory of returned attributes and tells the agent how to use the result. The exact response structure is not specified, but the explicit field enumeration makes the tool usable without it.
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 the empty schema is fully self-explanatory and the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds contextual meaning around the 'key' concept by explaining its role in submit_enquiry, which reinforces rather than repeats the schema.
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 tool as providing a list of every field in the CQC Registration Checker enquiry and enumerates the key attributes returned (key, label, type, required, help text, options). It is specific about the resource and content, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists' and does not directly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as enquiry_describe.
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 clear practical guidance: answers should be passed to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, which tells an agent why and when to use this tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it with alternatives, but the connection to submit_enquiry is a strong usage signal.
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: checker_start initializes the flow, checker_answer advances it, checker_tree provides the full decision guide, while enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields explain the form in two complementary ways and submit_enquiry handles submission. There is no meaningful overlap that would cause an agent to select the wrong tool.
The checker_* and enquiry_* prefixes impose some structure, and all names are lowercase snake_case. However, submit_enquiry breaks the prefix convention and enquiry_describe reverses the typical verb-object order, making the naming pattern less predictable than it could be.
Six tools is a well-scoped count for the server's purpose. Each tool maps to a necessary step in either the decision-guide workflow or the enquiry submission workflow, without superfluous additions.
The decision guide is fully covered with start, answer, and full-tree tools, while the enquiry workflow is covered end-to-end from description and fields through consent-based submission. There are no obvious missing operations that would block an agent from completing either workflow.