enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Fire Alarm Servicing 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 present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clarifies that the tool is a metadata lookup by describing the fields and by implying that submission happens through 'submit_enquiry', meaning this tool itself does not submit. It does not discuss permissions, rate limits, or response shape, but these are less critical for a zero-parameter read-only introspection tool.
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 sentences carry the content and downstream usage with no filler. The description front-loads the resource and field-info list before the usage note, making it easy to scan.
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 simple no-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description sufficiently specifies the returned information and how it should be used. It might be clearer with an explicit output shape or a note distinguishing it from 'enquiry_describe', but nothing critical 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, so the schema trivially covers 100% of parameters. With no parameters to document, the baseline is 4; the description's mention of 'key' and 'allowed options' helps contextualize the data consumers will need, but nothing more is required.
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 ('Fire Alarm Servicing Cost enquiry') and enumerates the field metadata ('key, label, type, whether required, help text...'), making the tool's purpose clear. However, it uses the noun phrase 'Every field of...' rather than an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists', and it does not directly distinguish the tool from the sibling 'enquiry_describe'.
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 actionable guidance: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key,' which tells the agent to use this tool to discover field keys before submitting. It does not mention 'enquiry_describe' or state when not to use the tool, so it lacks explicit 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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct role: one explains the process, one provides the field schema, and one submits the enquiry. There is no overlap between them, so an agent can confidently select the right tool for each step.
The names are readable and semantically related, but the patterns are mixed: enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields lead with the noun, while submit_enquiry follows verb_noun. This is a minor inconsistency rather than chaos, so it earns a middle score.
Three tools is well-scoped for a narrowly defined enquiry submission workflow. Each tool earns its place: orientation, schema discovery, and submission.
The tool surface fully covers the enquiry lifecycle described: explaining the process, enumerating required fields, and submitting with explicit consent and confirmation handling. No obvious missing step or dead end exists for the stated purpose.