enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Fire Risk Quotes 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this well by enumerating exactly what information each field includes and noting that allowed options appear only where they exist. This gives a clear picture of the tool's output without hiding surprises.
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 with no filler. The first sentence states what the tool returns with a detailed attribute list; the second immediately tells the agent how to connect the result to submit_enquiry. Every sentence earns its place.
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 introspection tool with no output schema, the description provides a complete picture: what the tool returns, which attributes are included, and how the results should be used. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call and use this tool correctly.
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 the schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter ambiguity. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but with no parameters to document, the baseline of 4 is appropriate.
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 Fire Risk Quotes enquiry, with a concrete list of attributes (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). This makes its purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from sibling tools like submit_enquiry and 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 description provides useful usage context by explaining that answers should be passed to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, which tells the agent how to consume the output. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over enquiry_describe, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer the appropriate situation.
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 workflow, one provides the field schema, and one handles the actual submission. There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between them.
All names use snake_case, but the pattern is mixed: 'enquiry_describe' and 'enquiry_fields' lead with the noun, while 'submit_enquiry' leads with the verb. Still readable, but not a consistent verb_noun convention.
Three tools is well-scoped for a single-purpose enquiry workflow. Each tool earns its place and the set is neither bloated nor too thin.
The workflow is fully covered: orientation, field discovery, validation, two-step confirmation, and submission. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated domain.