enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Hydraulic Repair Quotes 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, and it discloses the output content well by enumerating exactly what fields will be present. It implicitly communicates a read-only metadata lookup and connects the returned keys to the submit_enquiry workflow. It does not explicitly state that there are no side effects, but the framing and parameterless schema make that clear.
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 the tool's purpose and lists the returned content compactly; the second sentence gives actionable follow-up 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?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return content and hints at the integration with submit_enquiry. It could be slightly more explicit about the response shape (e.g., object vs list) and its relationship to enquiry_describe, but overall it gives an agent enough to invoke and use the result correctly.
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 already fully describes the accepted input; baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds relevant semantics by explaining that the returned keys are meant to be used as keys for submit_enquiry answers, which helps an agent apply the output correctly.
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 ('Every field of the Hydraulic Repair Quotes enquiry') and enumerates the returned attributes: key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'lists', and does not differentiate itself from the sibling enquiry_describe, but the resource and content are unmistakable.
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 an explicit downstream usage instruction: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key.' This clearly tells an agent how to use the result. It does not discuss when to avoid this tool or choose enquiry_describe, but for a zero-parameter metadata retriever this is solid contextual guidance.
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 submission schema, and submit_enquiry performs the actual two-step submission. There is no functional overlap, and the descriptions reinforce when each tool should be used.
The naming convention is mixed: submit_enquiry follows verb_noun, while enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields are noun-first. This is still readable and memorable, but the lack of a uniform pattern is noticeable.
Three tools are exactly right for the narrow scope of submitting an enquiry: orient, inspect fields, and submit. Each tool earns its place and there is no unnecessary surface area.
The workflow is fully covered: describe the process, list the required fields, then submit with consent and a confirmation token. No obvious gaps exist for the stated purpose of starting an enquiry with human providers.