enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Cyber Essentials 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It describes the output content (fields and their attributes) but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or that it has no side effects. However, the nature of returning field metadata strongly implies a safe query. It also does not mention potential errors, auth requirements, or response format beyond the attributes. The description adds some transparency but leaves room for assumptions.
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?
The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose and then a direct usage hint. Every word earns its place—no redundancy or filler. The structure is efficient and immediately informative, making it easy for an agent to parse the tool's role.
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 tool with no parameters, no output schema, and a straightforward purpose, the description is largely complete. It specifies exactly what information is returned (key, label, type, required, help text, options) and how to use it. It does not mention pagination or list structure, but given the simplicity, these are minor gaps. The description sufficiently equips an agent to call the tool correctly.
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 baseline is 4. The description adds semantic value by explaining how the returned field keys should be used ('Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key'), which clarifies the purpose of the output. Since there are no parameters to describe, the description adequately covers the interaction pattern.
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 states the tool's purpose: returning every field of a specific enquiry (Cyber Essentials Cost) along with their attributes. It names the resource (enquiry fields) and the verb (return/describe), and it distinguishes itself from siblings like submit_enquiry by focusing on field metadata, not submission. The mention of 'every field' and the specific attributes (key, label, type, etc.) makes the purpose unambiguous.
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 clear usage context: it tells the agent to use this tool to retrieve field definitions before passing answers to submit_enquiry. It explicitly links the output to the next step ('Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key'). While it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool, the context implies it is a prerequisite for submission and distinct from enquiry_describe. This is sufficient guidance for typical use.
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 clearly distinct role: enquiry_describe explains the process, enquiry_fields provides the input schema, and submit_enquiry performs the submission. An agent can easily select the right tool for the job without confusion.
Tool names are readable and mostly follow a noun_verb or verb_noun pattern, with enquiry_ prefix on two tools and submit_enquiry using the reverse order. This is a minor inconsistency that does not harm usability.
Three tools is exactly right for this narrow server purpose: describing the process, exposing the schema, and submitting the enquiry. No redundant tools exist.
The tool surface fully covers the enquiry lifecycle for this server, including context, field discovery, validation, consent, and two-step submission. There are no obvious missing operations for the stated purpose.