enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Employment Contract Generator 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 explaining behavior. It transparently discloses what the tool returns: every field with its key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. It does not mention side effects or read-only status, but the content description makes its read-only nature clear enough.
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 concise, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and every sentence earns its place. The first sentence details the return content, and the second provides actionable guidance on connecting to submit_enquiry.
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 simple, parameterless tool, the description is complete: it specifies exactly what data will be returned and how to use it with submit_enquiry. No output schema exists, so the description's enumeration of field attributes adequately covers return values.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately adds no parameter information since none is needed, and the schema already confirms no inputs.
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 tool as providing every field of the Employment Contract Generator enquiry, listing the specific attributes (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). This distinguishes it from siblings like submit_enquiry by framing it as the metadata source for the enquiry's fields.
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 context for when to use the tool: to discover the fields and their keys before submitting answers. It explicitly guides the agent to use submit_enquiry with answers keyed by field key, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool.
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 tools split cleanly into two workflows: the interactive checker (start, answer, tree) and the enquiry form (describe, fields, submit). Within each group, every tool has a distinct role, and the tree tool is clearly framed as the full end-to-end view rather than a step-by-step interaction.
Most tools follow a clear domain prefix pattern: checker_* and enquiry_*, with lowercase snake_case names. submit_enquiry breaks the prefix convention slightly, but it is still a plain verb_noun name and easily understood, so the overall pattern remains predictable.
Six tools is well-scoped for a site with two core features: a decision guide and a contact/enquiry flow. Each tool covers a necessary step without redundancy or bloat.
The checker workflow is complete with start, step-by-step navigation, and the full tree for end-to-end reasoning. The enquiry workflow is also complete with an overview, field schema, and a two-step consent-aware submission process, leaving no obvious dead ends.