enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Development Exit Finance 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 behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates a read-only metadata lookup and specifies the meaningful output dimensions, including requiredness and allowed options. It does not describe the exact response envelope, but for a parameterless lookup that is a minor omission.
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 tight sentences with no filler. The field-content summary is front-loaded, and the downstream usage pointer comes second, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully tells the agent what will be returned and how to use that information with submit_enquiry. No critical details needed to call the tool correctly are missing.
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 schema is trivially complete and the baseline is 4. The description adds useful semantic guidance by explaining that field keys should be used when passing answers to submit_enquiry, even though there are no actual parameters to document.
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 exact resource, the Development Exit Finance enquiry, and lists the returned attributes: key, label, type, required, help text, and allowed options. It also anchors the tool's purpose by telling the agent to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, distinguishing it from the submission sibling.
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?
It provides a clear usage context: retrieve field definitions so answers can be sent to submit_enquiry using the correct field keys. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use this tool or how it differs from enquiry_describe, so it stops short of a 5.
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 schema, and submit_enquiry performs the actual submission. There is no meaningful overlap or risk of selecting the wrong tool for a given step.
All names are lowercase snake_case and share the 'enquiry' domain prefix, but the pattern is not perfectly uniform: enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields are noun-first while submit_enquiry is verb-first. This is a minor deviation and the intent remains clear.
Three tools is exactly right for this tightly scoped enquiry submission flow. Each tool earns its place: one to orient, one to define the fields, and one to submit.
The tool surface fully covers the enquiry lifecycle described: understanding the process, retrieving the required fields, and submitting with the two-step confirmation flow. There are no obvious gaps for the stated purpose.