enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Employment Rights 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 describes what data is exposed and how it should be used, and there is no implication of side effects. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or describe the response format or error behavior. For a low-risk metadata lookup this is adequate but not thorough.
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 sentence front-loads the core content, and the second sentence provides actionable usage guidance. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding.
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 and five siblings, the description explains what the tool returns and how that result plugs into submit_enquiry. It does not detail the exact response shape, but that is a minor gap given the simplicity of the tool. A brief mention of how this differs from enquiry_describe would improve completeness.
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 already covers everything by default. The description adds useful semantic information by explaining that the returned field keys are the keys to use when calling submit_enquiry. This exceeds the baseline for an empty parameter set.
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 ('the Employment Rights Checker enquiry') and lists the exact contents returned: key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. It does not use an explicit verb like 'list' or 'return', but the meaning is unambiguous and it differentiates itself from submit_enquiry.
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 second sentence gives direct usage guidance: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key.' This tells the agent to retrieve field keys before building a submission. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like checker_answer or enquiry_describe, but the intended workflow is clear.
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 groups: the checker guide tools (start, answer, tree) and the enquiry tools (describe, fields, submit). Within each group, every tool has a distinct purpose with no meaningful overlap.
All names are lowercase snake_case and use domain prefixes like checker_ and enquiry_, which helps. However, the relationship between prefix and action varies: checker_start and checker_tree are noun-like, enquiry_describe is object-verb, and submit_enquiry is verb-object, so the pattern is not fully consistent.
Six tools is well-scoped for this server: three support navigating the decision guide and three support the enquiry submission flow. Each tool earns its place without redundancy or bloat.
The surface covers the full user journey: start the guide, answer questions, inspect the whole tree, understand the enquiry process, see required fields, and submit with two-step confirmation. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated domain.