enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Heritage Statement 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It discloses what the tool returns (every field's metadata) and implies a read-only, informational operation. The downstream instruction about submit_enquiry makes clear that this tool itself does not submit answers, though it does not explicitly state 'read-only'.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's subject and enumerates the return contents, followed by a useful usage note. Every clause adds information and there is no redundancy.
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 simple, zero-parameter introspection tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what the agent will receive and how to use that information with submit_enquiry. Nothing essential for selecting or invoking this 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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The schema already covers this completely, and the description appropriately focuses on the output rather than inputs.
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 (the Heritage Statement Cost enquiry) and enumerates the specific data returned: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It also clearly distinguishes this tool from submit_enquiry by positioning it as the source of field keys used in submissions.
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 on how the tool fits into a workflow: retrieve fields here, then pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. It does not explicitly say when to use enquiry_describe as an alternative, but the use case is clear enough for an agent to decide.
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: one explains the process, one provides the field schema, and one performs the submission. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tools follow a consistent 'enquiry_' prefix with a descriptive verb or noun suffix: describe, fields, submit. The naming pattern is uniform and predictable.
Three tools is exactly right for this narrow single-purpose server: documentation, schema, and submission. No redundant or missing tools exist for the stated scope.
The set covers the full enquiry workflow: understanding the process, retrieving the required fields, and submitting with a two-step confirmation. There are no obvious dead ends or gaps for what the server promises.