enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the HGV Hours Calculator 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 disclosure burden. It transparently states the content scope and the conditional 'where there are any' for options, but says nothing about return structure, whether the field list is static or dynamic, or other operational behavior. 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 sentences, front-loaded with the content scope and closed with a practical usage pointer. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.
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, no-output-schema metadata tool, the description covers what it returns, the fields included, and how to use the result downstream. The only small gap is not specifying the response format, and the boundary with enquiry_describe remains implicit rather than explicit.
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 takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter semantic gap for the description to fill, meriting the baseline 4. The mention of field keys is relevant to submit_enquiry's parameters, not this tool's own.
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 (HGV Hours Calculator enquiry fields) and enumerates the exact content returned (key, label, type, required, help text, options). It lacks an explicit verb like 'lists' or 'returns', and its boundary against the similar sibling enquiry_describe/calculator_describe is only implied, so it doesn't reach a 5.
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 second sentence gives actionable guidance: answers passed to submit_enquiry must be keyed by the field keys from this tool. This clearly establishes when the tool is needed, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives.
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 distinct job: calculate runs the calculator, calculator_describe explains its inputs/outputs, enquiry_describe explains the enquiry flow, enquiry_fields provides the field schema, and submit_enquiry performs the submission. Even the two describe tools are clearly separated by topic and purpose.
The documentation tools follow a noun-first pattern (calculator_describe, enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields), but the action tools are inconsistent: calculate is a bare verb while submit_enquiry is verb_noun. This is readable but not a fully predictable convention.
Five tools is well-scoped for this small domain: two calculator-related tools and three enquiry-related tools. Each tool serves a necessary purpose and none feels redundant.
The tool set fully covers the apparent purpose: calculate provides the core function, calculator_describe supplies its documentation, and the enquiry flow has schema lookup, flow explanation, and a two-step submission process. There are no obvious missing operations that would leave an agent stuck.