enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Dilapidations 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It tells the agent exactly what data will be returned (field metadata, allowed options) and how the output should be used. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe any edge cases, but for a zero-parameter introspection tool this is a solid explanation.
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, front-loaded with the core meaning and ending with actionable guidance. Every phrase adds value: the field attributes are enumerated compactly, and the relationship to submit_enquiry is stated directly. No redundant words.
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?
The tool is simple, has no parameters, and the description covers the return content and downstream usage. The only notable omission is not mentioning the sibling enquiry_describe or clarifying the return format (e.g., object vs array), but overall it is sufficient for an agent to call and use the result 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 takes zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to add. The description instead clarifies the meaning of the output, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is warranted for a no-parameter tool.
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 returns every field of the enquiry with key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. This is specific and easily understood. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get' and does not directly differentiate itself from the sibling enquiry_describe, so it misses the top score.
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 context: use this tool to discover field keys and then pass answers to submit_enquiry using those keys. This implicitly explains when to use it relative to submit_enquiry. It does not, however, mention when to use enquiry_describe instead or provide any exclusion criteria.
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 targets a distinct stage: overview, field schema, and submission. enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields are both informational, but one explains flow and consent while the other exposes exact payload fields, leaving little ambiguity.
The names are readable and snake_case, but the pattern is mixed: enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields use a noun prefix while submit_enquiry uses verb-first naming. A fully consistent set would be something like enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields, enquiry_submit.
Three tools is well-scoped for the server's stated purpose: it exists only to help an agent learn about and submit a Dilapidations Cost enquiry. No tool feels redundant or unnecessary.
The set covers the entire enquiry workflow: discover what the action means, retrieve the required field schema, and submit with a two-step confirmation flow. There are no dead ends or missing operations for the declared domain.