enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Drain Prices 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 and no output schema, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden, and it does disclose the exact contents of the returned field information: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It could be more explicit about being read-only, but the nature of a field-listing tool makes that reasonably inferable.
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 first sentence states exactly what the tool provides, and the second connects the output to the sibling submission tool. Every sentence earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.
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 that the tool has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description conveys enough to use it: what the fields are and how their keys connect to submit_enquiry. It would be marginally more complete if it explicitly distinguished this tool from enquiry_describe.
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 coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. This matches the baseline of 4 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 identifies the resource ('Every field of the Drain Prices enquiry') and enumerates the exact attributes exposed, which makes the tool's purpose clear. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists', so it is slightly weaker than a fully direct purpose statement.
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 by telling the agent to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, which signals that this tool should be used to discover the enquiry schema before submission. It does not explicitly contrast with enquiry_describe, so it stops short of full alternative-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.
enquiry_describe explains what the service does, enquiry_fields provides the input schema, and submit_enquiry performs the actual submission. Each tool targets a clearly distinct aspect of the workflow, so an agent can select the correct one without ambiguity.
All three tools share the 'enquiry' root, making the domain immediately clear. The arrangement differs slightly, with submit_enquiry using verb-first order while enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields lead with the noun, but the pattern remains readable and predictable.
Three tools map cleanly onto a single narrow workflow: understand the service, inspect the fields, and submit the enquiry. Each tool earns its place, and the count is well-scoped for the server's stated purpose.
The surface covers the full path for the core action: describing the process, retrieving required field definitions, and submitting with a two-step confirmation. Purchasing and quoting are intentionally out of scope, so no essential operation is missing.