enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Event Hire Costs 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It clearly implies a read-only introspection operation returning field metadata, and it states the scope of the data returned. It does not mention authentication or side effects, but for a fields lookup this is not a significant gap.
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 concise sentences with no filler. The core content is front-loaded, and the cross-tool guidance is kept to a single sentence.
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?
Given the absence of an output schema, the description provides a reasonable picture of the returned data and its intended use. It could be more explicit about the response structure, such as whether the result is a list or object, but the listed attributes and keying instruction cover the essential context.
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 input schema contains nothing that needs explanation. The description adds a useful convention by saying answers to submit_enquiry should be keyed by field key, which is helpful context even though it is not an input parameter of this tool.
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 names a specific resource: every field of the Event Hire Costs enquiry, and enumerates exactly what is returned: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. This makes the tool's purpose obvious and distinguishes it from submit_enquiry by clarifying that it provides the field keys used for submission.
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 clear workflow context by instructing agents to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. It does not explicitly contrast with enquiry_describe, but it explains enough about when and why 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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: enquiry_describe provides the conceptual overview, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the actual submission. No two tools could reasonably be confused for one another.
The naming is readable and consistently lowercase with underscores, but the grammatical pattern is mixed: enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields are noun-first, while submit_enquiry is verb-first. This inconsistency is minor and does not significantly harm usability.
Three tools is ideal for this narrow, single-workflow server. Each tool covers a necessary part of the enquiry process without redundancy or bloat.
The server fully covers the intended workflow: orienting the user, discovering required fields, and submitting an enquiry with a two-step confirmation token. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated purpose.