enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Energy Audit 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only retrieval of field metadata but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or that it does not require authentication. The mention of submit_enquiry is a usage hint rather than a disclosure of this tool's behavior. A 3 is appropriate because the description is not misleading but lacks explicit behavioral guarantees.
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 concise sentences. The first sentence defines the tool's output completely, and the second provides a direct usage hint. No redundant wording, and the key 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?
For a zero-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the content of the returned fields and how to use them with submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly state the response format (e.g., array of objects), but that is easily inferable. The absence of pagination or error details is minor for such a simple tool.
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 provides no parameter information. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter semantics because there are none; it focuses on the output structure, which is acceptable given the lack of 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 states the tool returns every field of the Energy Audit Cost enquiry, specifying the exact attributes (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). It also names the sibling submit_enquiry and implies this tool is for retrieving field definitions, distinguishing it from the submission tool.
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: this tool is for fetching field definitions, and it explicitly advises passing answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. However, it does not mention the alternative enquiry_describe or state when not to use this tool, leaving some ambiguity about sibling differentiation.
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: describe explains the process, fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry handles submission. There is no overlap in purpose or confusion about which tool to call.
All names use lowercase snake_case and share the 'enquiry' prefix, making them easy to group. Minor inconsistency exists because enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields are noun-first while submit_enquiry is verb-first, but this remains readable and predictable.
Three tools are exactly right for this narrow domain: one for orientation, one for input schema, and one for the actual submission. Each tool earns its place and there is no bloat.
The tool set fully covers the enquiry workflow: understanding the process, retrieving the fields, validating and submitting with consent, and handling the confirmation step. No obvious lifecycle gap exists for the stated purpose.