enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Demolition Quotes 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 convey behavioral expectations. It describes the returned content but does not explicitly state that calling this tool is read-only or side-effect-free. For a metadata/inspection tool this is a modest gap, but an explicit note about its safe, read-only nature would improve transparency.
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 with no filler. The first sentence lists the returned fields efficiently, and the second gives direct, actionable guidance. Everything present 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?
Given there is no output schema, the description does a good job enumerating what will be returned and how to use that output. It could mention that no input parameters are required or clarify output formatting, but those are minor omissions for a simple field-listing tool.
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 and the schema is empty, giving a baseline of 4. The description adds useful semantics by explaining that the returned field keys are the keys to use when submitting answers to submit_enquiry, which goes beyond the empty 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 states what the tool returns: every field of the Demolition Quotes enquiry, including key, label, type, required flag, help text, and options. It is unambiguous and separates it from submit_enquiry, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve' and does not explicitly contrast with 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 actionable guidance: use the returned field keys to pass answers to submit_enquiry. This implies the primary use case and connects it to a sibling tool. It does not explicitly say when to prefer enquiry_fields over enquiry_describe, but the purpose is clear enough.
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.
The three tools have distinct roles: one explains the enquiry process, one provides the schema, and one submits. The two informational tools are separated clearly by narrative versus field-level detail, though both are discovery-oriented.
All tool names share the 'enquiry' resource, but the pattern is mixed: 'submit_enquiry' follows verb_noun while 'enquiry_describe' and 'enquiry_fields' lead with the noun. This is readable and predictable enough, but not fully consistent.
Three tools is well-scoped for a focused enquiry submission flow: one to understand the process, one to get the schema, and one to submit. Each tool has a clear purpose and none feel redundant.
The tool set fully covers the enquiry lifecycle from orientation through field discovery to validated submission with consent confirmation. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated purpose.