enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the HVAC Maintenance 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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what the tool returns and how the output should be consumed by submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but a zero-parameter field metadata tool strongly implies that, and no surprising side effects are suggested.
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, no filler. The first sentence front-loads exactly what the tool returns, and the second sentence gives actionable downstream guidance. Every clause 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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers the returned field attributes and the intended downstream usage well. A short note about how this differs from enquiry_describe would make it fully complete, but the current definition is sufficient for correct selection and invocation.
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 schema imposes no burden on the agent. The description adds useful semantic context about field keys and how they should be used when submitting answers, which exceeds the baseline for a parameterless tool.
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 that the tool exposes every field of the HVAC Maintenance Cost enquiry, including key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It is distinguishable from submit_enquiry because it explicitly references passing answers to that tool, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with 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 gives clear downstream guidance: pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. This implies the tool is meant to be used before submitting answers, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over enquiry_describe or mention exclusion cases.
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 role: enquiry_describe explains the process, enquiry_fields provides the form schema, and submit_enquiry performs the submission. There is no meaningful overlap, and the descriptions reinforce when each should be used.
The names share a clear topical connection to 'enquiry', but the pattern is mixed: submit_enquiry follows verb_noun, while enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields lead with the noun. The names are readable, but the convention is not fully consistent.
Three tools is exactly right for this narrow workflow: one to orient the agent, one to supply the schema, and one to handle submission. Each tool has a clear purpose and none feel redundant.
The tool set fully covers the enquiry lifecycle described: understanding the process, retrieving required fields, and submitting with consent confirmation. There are no obvious dead ends, and the two-step confirmation is handled within submit_enquiry itself.