enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Gallbladder Surgery 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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It makes clear the tool exposes field metadata rather than performing a mutation, and it notes that allowed options are included only where they exist. It does not explicitly say the operation is read-only, describe response wrapping, or mention any constraints, so it is adequate but not rich.
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 front-loaded sentences: the first states exactly what the tool returns, and the second gives actionable cross-tool guidance. There is no filler, repetition, or restating of the name.
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 fully covers the essential response contents and ties them to the sibling submit_enquiry. Nothing needed to invoke or interpret the tool 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 input schema has zero properties, and the description correctly reflects that the tool takes no parameters. The added guidance about keying answers by field key clarifies how the returned keys are meant to be used with submit_enquiry, adding value 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?
The description identifies the resource clearly: every field of the Gallbladder Surgery Cost enquiry, including key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. It lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists', but the content and the reference to submit_enquiry make the purpose unambiguous and distinguish it from its siblings.
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 gives concrete cross-tool guidance: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key.' This tells an agent why to call this tool and how to use its result. It does not explicitly contrast with enquiry_describe or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.
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 clear, distinct role: one describes the enquiry flow, one provides the field schema, and one performs the submission. There is no meaningful overlap between them.
All names are lowercase snake_case and share the 'enquiry' root, but 'enquiry_describe' and 'enquiry_fields' use noun-first naming while 'submit_enquiry' is verb-first. This is a minor inconsistency that does not impede readability.
Three tools is well-scoped for a narrow enquiry-submission workflow: an overview, a schema, and a submit action. Each tool earns its place.
The surface fully supports the stated purpose: an agent can read the flow, get all field requirements, and perform the two-step consent-based submission. No obvious dead ends or missing operations for this domain.