enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Grease Trap Cleaning 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 must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the content of the response but does not explicitly say whether the operation is read-only or has side effects. Since it only returns field definitions, it is likely safe, but the lack of an explicit read-only statement or mention of any prerequisites leaves some ambiguity.
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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence immediately states the tool's purpose and enumerates the attributes, and the second provides a crucial usage pointer. It is front-loaded and every word 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?
Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description provides all essential information: what the tool returns (field attributes), and how to use the result (pass to submit_enquiry). An agent can call this tool without additional context, and the description fully compensates for the missing structured metadata.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the schema is trivially 100% covered. Per the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to explain inputs, and it adds no parameter-related semantics; it only clarifies the output structure, which is out of scope for this dimension.
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 Grease Trap Cleaning Cost enquiry, listing the attributes (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on field-level details rather than the enquiry as a whole, so an agent can tell it apart 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?
It gives a concrete usage hint: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key', which tells the agent that the output should be used to construct a submission. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or contrast with enquiry_describe, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer the appropriate scenario.
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 purpose: one explains the enquiry flow, one provides the field schema, and one submits the enquiry. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Two tools use the noun-prefixed pattern enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields, while the third is submit_enquiry, which reverses the action-noun order. The names are still readable and follow the same domain, but the pattern is slightly inconsistent.
Three tools are well-scoped for the narrow purpose of facilitating an enquiry submission. Each tool earns its place without adding unnecessary surface area.
The set covers the full enquiry flow: explaining what happens, providing the schema, and handling the two-step confirmation submission. There are no obvious gaps for the stated domain.