enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the FSMA Crypto Promotions Checker 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 full burden, and it adequately conveys that this is an informational/read-only tool returning field metadata rather than performing an action. It also clarifies that answers belong in submit_enquiry, reducing the risk of misuse. It does not mention potential side effects, but none are implied or plausible for a field-listing 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 description is compact and front-loaded, naming the resource and contents in the first sentence and immediately giving actionable next-step guidance in the second. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without repetition or filler.
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 that there are no parameters and no output schema, the description tells the agent what will be returned and how to connect it to the submission flow. It is not exhaustive about formatting or pagination, but for a simple metadata-listing tool the important context is present.
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 for this dimension is 4. The description adds value by explaining how the returned field keys should be used when calling submit_enquiry, even though no parameter documentation is needed here.
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 FSMA Crypto Promotions Checker enquiry and enumerates exactly what each entry contains: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. This distinguishes it from submission-focused siblings like submit_enquiry and gives an agent a precise idea of what to expect.
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 clear context by explaining that the output is meant to be used as a reference when passing answers to submit_enquiry, keyed by field key. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools such as enquiry_describe, but the purpose is clear enough to guide selection.
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: checker_start, checker_answer, and checker_tree cover different aspects of the decision guide (initial step, stepwise traversal, full map), while enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields, and submit_enquiry cover the enquiry flow (overview, schema, submission). Even the two checker tools that both deal with questions are clearly separated as interactive navigation vs. complete reasoning tree.
All names use lowercase snake_case and are grouped by domain prefix (checker_ and enquiry_), which makes them easy to navigate. However, action placement is not fully uniform: checker_answer and enquiry_describe are noun-verb, while submit_enquiry is verb-noun, and checker_tree/enquiry_fields are noun-noun.
Six tools is well-scoped for the server's stated purpose: three tools for the interactive decision guide and three for the enquiry submission flow. Each tool earns its place, with no redundant or missing high-level operations.
The surface fully covers both workflows: navigating the decision guide from start to verdict, viewing the full guide structure, and submitting an enquiry with fields, consent, and confirmation tokens. No obvious dead ends or missing lifecycle operations are apparent.