enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Farm Grant Deadlines 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?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly implies a read-only, informational tool by describing fields and options, but it does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior or what happens on error.
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?
A single tightly-packed sentence that front-loads the core content and ends with a practical usage note. There is no wasted text or redundant restating of the title.
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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description adequately specifies what is returned and how to use the output. It could be slightly more explicit about the absence of parameters or side effects, but nothing essential is missing.
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 and 100% schema coverage, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description adds no parameter-level details because none exist, and its mention of field keys is relevant to output usage rather than input parameters.
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 what the tool provides: every field of the Farm Grant Deadlines enquiry, including key, label, type, required status, help text, and options. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'lists', but the meaning is unambiguous and tied to a specific resource.
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 direct usage context by instructing that answers should be passed to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended workflow with sibling submit_enquiry 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 six tools split cleanly into two groups: checker_* for the decision guide and enquiry_* for the submission flow. Each tool has a unique purpose—starting, answering, or viewing the tree versus describing, listing fields, or submitting—with no overlap or ambiguity.
All tools use lowercase snake_case and a domain prefix (checker_ or enquiry_), but the second part mixes verbs (start, describe, submit) and nouns (answer, tree, fields). The pattern is not uniformly verb_noun, though it is readable and predictable within each domain.
With six tools, the server is tightly scoped to two related workflows—a decision guide and an enquiry form. This is well within the ideal 3–15 range, and each tool is necessary for its respective flow.
The checker covers start, step-by-step progression, and full tree access; the enquiry covers documentation, field schema, and a two-step submission with consent. No obvious gaps exist for the stated purposes—a user can complete both workflows end to end using these tools.