enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Crypto Accountants Directory 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. It implies a read-only metadata lookup and separates this from submission by referencing submit_enquiry, but it never explicitly states that there are no side effects or that the operation is safe. It also says nothing about errors, rate limits, or other behavioral traits.
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 filler. The output contract is front-loaded and the downstream usage hint is placed second. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.
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?
Even without an output schema, the description enumerates the important return fields and explains how to use them with submit_enquiry. It is complete enough for a zero-parameter field metadata tool, though it does not explicitly state whether the result is an array, a map keyed by field key, or another collection format.
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 is empty, so there are no parameters to document. With 0 params, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately focuses on the output shape and downstream use rather than invocation arguments.
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's resource and output contents: every field of the Crypto Accountants Directory enquiry, including key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It is not a tautology and is easily distinguished from submit_enquiry, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'return'.
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 second sentence gives practical guidance: after retrieving the fields, pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. This establishes a clear use case and relationship to a sibling tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare against enquiry_describe, so it stops short of full routing guidance.
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 maps to a clearly distinct output: criteria, options, full table, enquiry explanation, enquiry fields, and submission. Even the three compare tools are unlikely to be confused because their descriptions specify different levels of detail.
The compare_* tools follow a consistent verb-noun pattern, but the enquiry tools mix conventions: enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields use an enquiry_ prefix while submit_enquiry leads with the verb. This makes the naming pattern less predictable, though still readable.
Six tools is a well-scoped count for this server's two clear purposes: showing a comparison and submitting an enquiry. Each tool has a distinct role and none feels redundant.
The comparison side covers criteria, options, and the full table, while the enquiry side covers explanation, fields, and a two-step submission flow with consent confirmation. No obvious missing operation is needed for the stated site workflow.