enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Forklift 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?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It transparently describes the returned data composition and implicitly marks the tool as an informational lookup by separating it from submission ('Pass answers to submit_enquiry'). It does not state read-only status or output format explicitly, but the content list is sufficient for a zero-parameter fields 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?
The entire definition is one compact sentence that front-loads the purpose and then lists the data elements and the linkage to submit_enquiry. Every part earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.
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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains what the caller will receive (field metadata) and how to use it (keying submit_enquiry answers by field key). No critical information needed to invoke or interpret the result 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 baseline is 4. The description adds the useful semantic that answers should be keyed by field key when passed to submit_enquiry, which clarifies the meaning and purpose of the returned keys beyond the empty schema.
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?
Description names a specific resource ('every field of the Forklift Servicing Cost enquiry') and specifies exactly what is returned: key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. It lacks an explicit verb like 'lists' or 'returns', and it does not distinguish from sibling enquiry_describe, but the resource is clear enough for an agent.
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 sentence 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' gives clear practical context for how to use the returned field keys, tying the tool to its sibling submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention enquiry_describe, but the usage direction is unambiguous.
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 distinct role: describe explains the workflow, fields provides the schema, submit sends the enquiry. There is no overlap between the three.
All names use snake_case and share the 'enquiry' theme, but the pattern is inconsistent: enquiry_describe is noun-verb, enquiry_fields is noun-noun, and submit_enquiry is verb-noun. Readable, but not a uniform convention.
Three tools are exactly right for this narrow enquiry workflow: one to understand the process, one to get the schema, and one to submit. No redundant tools.
The tool set fully covers the enquiry lifecycle described: discover what the tool does, fetch the required fields, validate and submit with consent and confirmation. There are no obvious missing operations for the stated purpose.