enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Grain Storage Costs 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?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a metadata/field-listing operation, describes the shape of the returned data, and clarifies that actual submission happens through submit_enquiry. The absence of mutation language makes this a clearly passive lookup, though it doesn't explicitly state read-only or permission requirements.
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 with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the resource and the full list of returned attributes; the second adds the actionable connection to submit_enquiry. Every sentence 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 lookup with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the specific enquiry, lists all returned dimensions, and explains how to use the results. Nothing essential is missing for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.
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 no parameter detail to document. The empty input schema is fully covered, and the description adds practical guidance by telling the agent to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key.
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 exact resource ('Every field of the Grain Storage Costs enquiry') and enumerates the output attributes: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. This makes it easy to distinguish from siblings: submit_enquiry sends answers, while this tool exposes the field definitions to use with those answers.
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 clear context for when this tool is useful: to learn the field keys before calling submit_enquiry. It doesn't explicitly say 'do not use this to submit answers,' but the instruction to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by these fields implies the division of responsibility well.
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: describe explains the enquiry process, fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the actual submission. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Two tools share the enquiry_ prefix (enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields) while the action tool is verb-first (submit_enquiry). The naming is readable and consistently snake_case, but the pattern is not uniform.
Three tools are well-scoped for the server's single purpose: describing, introspecting, and submitting an enquiry. Each tool earns its place without redundancy or bloat.
The toolset fully covers the enquiry lifecycle: discover what the enquiry does, learn the required fields, and submit with consent and confirmation. There are no obvious gaps or dead ends for the stated domain.