enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the EPC Upgrade 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does well by specifying every piece of returned field data and the conditional nature of allowed options. It also reveals that the returned keys are the exact keys expected by submit_enquiry. However, it does not explicitly state whether the call is read-only or describe the response container.
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 short sentences with no filler; the first defines the output surface and the second connects it to the submitting workflow. The important resource name appears first.
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 no-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return information and the intended follow-up call. It would be more complete if it stated the output container (e.g., list/object) and where enquiry_describe fits, since siblings are present.
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 input parameters, so the schema already covers everything and the baseline is 4. The description adds useful downstream context about how returned keys map to submit_enquiry, but no parameter semantics for this tool need explaining.
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 specific resource ('EPC Upgrade Cost enquiry') and the returned contents ('key, label, type, whether required, help text, allowed options'), so an agent can tell it exposes the field schema. It does not use an explicit retrieval verb and does not contrast with enquiry_describe, which prevents full sibling differentiation.
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 a clear workflow: retrieve this field schema, then 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key.' This tells the agent when the tool is needed, but it does not mention when to prefer enquiry_describe or provide exclusions.
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 three tools have clearly distinct roles: one explains the process and consent, one exposes the field schema, and one performs the two-step submission. An agent can readily determine which tool to call for a given step.
The names all use lowercase snake_case and share the 'enquiry' concept, which keeps them readable and thematically consistent. The only deviation is the word order: 'enquiry_describe' places the verb after the noun while 'submit_enquiry' places it before the noun, so the pattern is mostly consistent rather than perfectly uniform.
Three tools is an appropriate size for this narrow purpose: one onboarding/explanation tool, one schema tool, and one submission tool. Each tool earns its place and none feels redundant.
The tool surface fully covers the enquiry workflow it advertises: learn what happens, get the required fields, and submit with consent and confirmation. There are no obvious missing operations such as update, cancel, or status tracking that this specific lead-submission domain would require.