enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the FORS Accreditation 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 the burden of explaining behavior. It usefully specifies the fields returned and the conditional nature of options, but it never explicitly states that this is a read-only metadata retrieval or describes the output shape/container. It is adequate but not fully transparent.
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, no filler, and the most important information is front-loaded. The first sentence defines the scope and contents, and the second gives immediate actionable guidance about submitting answers.
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?
Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description does a good job of covering what fields the agent will see and how to connect them to submit_enquiry. It still leaves minor gaps such as the exact return container/format and how enquiry_describe relates, but for a zero-parameter metadata tool it is largely complete.
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 there is nothing the description must explain about inputs. The mention of 'keyed by field key' adds useful cross-tool semantics for submit_enquiry, though it is about the output rather than this tool's 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 the resource: every field of the FORS Accreditation Cost enquiry, and enumerates what is included (key, label, type, required, help text, options). It does not use an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists', and it distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry but not from 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 implies when this is useful by saying 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key', which tells the agent how the output connects to a sibling tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over enquiry_describe or provide any exclusion criteria.
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: enquiry_describe explains the process, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the submission. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
The naming is readable and scoped to 'enquiry', but the pattern is inconsistent: enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields are noun-first while submit_enquiry is verb-first. A more consistent set would use describe_enquiry and get_enquiry_fields or similar.
Three tools is appropriate for a focused enquiry-submission workflow: one to set expectations, one for field definitions, and one to submit. Each tool earns its place with no redundant surface.
The workflow is fully covered: an agent can read about the process, fetch the required field schema, validate and submit an enquiry, and handle the two-step confirmation. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated purpose.