enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Hernia 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 behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states what the tool returns (all fields and their attributes) and adds the useful context that these keys are used to pass answers to submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly state side effects or response shape, but for a read-only metadata enumeration this is largely sufficient.
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. It front-loads the core resource and purpose, uses a compact colon list for the returned attributes, and closes with a practical pointer 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 simple, parameterless metadata tool, the description provides the essential return contents and a clear connection to the submission flow. However, it does not specify the response shape (array vs object) or explicitly address the relationship to enquiry_describe, which leaves a small but non-critical gap.
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 is 4. The description adds no parameter details because none are needed; the schema properties object is empty and the description does not introduce any hidden 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 clearly identifies the resource ('Hernia Surgery Cost enquiry') and enumerates the returned field metadata attributes (key, label, type, required, help text, options). It differentiates itself from submit_enquiry by explaining that answers are keyed by field key, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 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?
The description implies when to use the tool: to discover the fields and keys needed before calling submit_enquiry. It does not provide explicit when-not guidance or contrast with enquiry_describe, so the usage context is present but incomplete.
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, separate role: enquiry_describe explains the process, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the submission. There is no meaningful overlap between the informational and action-oriented tools.
Tool names are consistently lowercase snake_case and clearly reference the enquiry domain. Minor inconsistency exists because two names start with 'enquiry_' while one uses verb-first 'submit_enquiry', but the pattern is still predictable and readable.
Three tools is a small but appropriate set for a narrow single-purpose workflow. Each tool earns its place by covering description, field discovery, and submission without unnecessary bloat.
The enquiry submission workflow is well covered: the agent can understand the process, retrieve all required fields, and complete the two-step consent confirm flow. A minor gap is the lack of any way to check enquiry status or cancel after submission, but this does not block the core purpose.