enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Drone Licence Checker 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 carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose what data the tool exposes and implies a read-only metadata lookup, but it never explicitly states that there are no side effects or how the field list is returned. For a low-risk metadata tool this is acceptable, but the absence of an explicit behavioral statement keeps it at a 3.
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 enumerates the returned field metadata, and the second links those field keys to submit_enquiry. The most important content is front-loaded and every sentence 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?
For a zero-parameter metadata tool, the description sufficiently explains what is returned and how the output relates to submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly differentiate from enquiry_describe, which could cause ambiguity among sibling tools, but the core usage is complete enough for an agent to invoke 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 and an empty schema, so there is nothing for the description to clarify about parameter syntax or meaning. The mention of keying answers to submit_enquiry by field key adds useful domain context even though it is not a parameter. A zero-parameter tool gets a baseline 4, and the description meets that bar.
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 resource as the field structure of the Drone Licence Checker enquiry and enumerates the exact metadata exposed (key, label, type, required, help text, options). It also connects the tool to submit_enquiry, giving the agent a concrete purpose. It loses one point because it lacks an explicit verb such as 'lists' or 'returns', and the title is noun-like.
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 one useful routing hint: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key,' which tells the agent how to use the returned field keys. However, it does not explicitly state when to use enquiry_fields over sibling tools like enquiry_describe or checker_tree, and there are no exclusions. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.
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: checker_start and checker_answer drive the step-by-step guide, checker_tree provides the full tree for offline reasoning, and enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields, and submit_enquiry form a clear documentation-plus-submission flow. There is no real overlap that would cause an agent to misselect.
The naming is mostly predictable with checker_* and enquiry_* prefixes grouping related tools. submit_enquiry breaks the prefix pattern by using verb-first order, but all names are readable snake_case and the semantic grouping is clear.
Six tools is well-scoped for this server: three support the Drone licence checker decision guide and three support the enquiry submission flow. Each tool earns its place and the count is not excessive.
The decision guide has start, per-step answering, and full-tree access, covering both interactive use and end-to-end reasoning. The enquiry flow covers explanation, field schema, and the two-step consent-based submission, so there are no obvious dead ends or missing operations.