enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Football Trials Database 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 communicates that the tool exposes all enquiry fields and their metadata, implying a read-only metadata lookup. It does not discuss side effects, authentication, or whether the data is static or dynamically generated, but for a simple field-listing tool the description is not misleading.
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?
The description is two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core content of the tool, and the second sentence adds a clear, actionable relationship to submit_enquiry. Every word 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 metadata tool with no output schema, the description explains the return content well and connects it to the submission workflow. It could be slightly more explicit about the output shape, but the enumerated fields give an agent enough understanding to use the tool and interpret results.
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% by virtue of an empty schema, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful semantic context by explaining what each field represents and how field keys are used downstream in submit_enquiry, which is valuable even though there are no parameters to document.
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 resource (the Football Trials Database enquiry fields) and enumerates exactly what is included: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by explaining that answers must be keyed by these fields, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'list'.
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 implies when to use the tool: when you need the field definitions to construct a submission, since it says to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. However, it does not explicitly compare against siblings like checker_answer, checker_start, or enquiry_describe, nor state when this tool should not be used.
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 tools split into two clear clusters: decision-guide tools (checker_start, checker_answer, checker_tree) and enquiry tools (enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields, submit_enquiry). Each tool has a distinct role, though checker_answer and checker_tree both support reasoning through the guide and could occasionally be confused.
The checker_ and enquiry_ prefixes create a readable pattern, but submit_enquiry breaks the convention by leading with the verb instead of the domain prefix. Within the prefixed groups, terms like start, answer, tree, describe, and fields mix verb-like and noun-like naming styles.
Six tools is well-scoped for the apparent purpose: a decision guide plus an enquiry submission flow. Every tool earns its place, and the count is neither thin nor bloated.
The checker cluster gives complete coverage of the decision guide: start, step through answers, and view the full tree. The enquiry cluster covers explanation, schema, and two-step consent-based submission, so the two workflows have no dead ends.