enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the IHT 2027 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 must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the returned content well but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only retrieval, whether any authentication is needed, or how the result is structured. This is a minor gap for a simple metadata-listing tool, but still a gap.
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 compact, front-loaded with the resource identity, and every clause adds value: the field list is specific and the downstream usage hint is actionable. No filler or 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?
There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned field attributes. It provides enough context for an agent to know what the tool returns and how to use the field keys. It could give a small example or clarify the 'type' values, but overall it is adequately complete for a low-complexity metadata tool.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the schema adds nothing and the baseline is 4. The description adds useful semantics by explaining what the returned fields represent and how the field keys should be used with submit_enquiry.
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 states the resource ('every field of the IHT 2027 Calculator enquiry') and the specific attributes it exposes (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). Although there is no explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists', the meaning is unmistakable and it is clearly distinguished from the sibling submit_enquiry and enquiry_describe tools.
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 tells the agent that answers should be passed to submit_enquiry keyed by these field keys, which establishes the main use case. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for different scenarios, but the context is sufficient to understand when this tool is needed.
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: calculate runs the calculator, calculator_describe documents it, enquiry_describe explains the submission process, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the two-step submission. There is no meaningful overlap that would cause an agent to select the wrong tool.
Names do not follow a single pattern: calculate and submit_enquiry are verb-led, while calculator_describe and enquiry_describe are noun-verb reversed, and enquiry_fields is noun-noun. The inconsistency makes expected naming behavior hard to predict.
Five tools is well-scoped for the calculator-plus-enquiry workflow. Each tool serves a necessary step, from running the calculation to understanding it, inspecting fields, and submitting with confirmation.
The tool set covers the full user journey: calculate the IHT figure, understand the calculator's inputs and assumptions, read guidance on the enquiry, inspect required fields, and submit with an explicit two-step confirmation. There are no obvious dead ends for the stated domain.