enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Industrial Cleaning 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 burden, and it does disclose the informational nature of the call and what it returns: every field with its key, label, type, required status, help text, and options. It implies a safe read-only listing and gives no indication of side effects. It does not discuss errors or access restrictions, but for a parameterless metadata tool this is not a significant omission.
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 concise sentences with no waste: the first front-loads the tool's content, and the second gives a practical cross-reference to submit_enquiry. Every sentence adds value and the structure is easy to scan.
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, low-complexity introspection tool, the description fully enumerates the expected return content and explains how to use the returned keys. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call the tool and act on its result.
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 accepts zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter semantics because there are no parameters to document, and the schema already covers everything needed.
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 Industrial Cleaning Quotes enquiry and enumerates the field metadata: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. This clearly differentiates it from submit_enquiry, though it does not explicitly contrast it 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 provides a clear usage context: to learn the fields/keys of the enquiry, and it explicitly instructs the agent to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. It does not state when-not-to-use cases or explicitly mention enquiry_describe as an alternative, so exclusions are only implied.
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 clearly distinct role: one explains the service, one provides the field schema, and one performs the submission. There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between them.
The names are readable and thematically related, but they do not follow a single pattern: 'enquiry_describe' and 'enquiry_fields' are noun-prefixed while 'submit_enquiry' is verb-prefixed. This mix is understandable but not fully consistent.
Three tools is well-scoped for a simple enquiry submission flow. Each tool serves a necessary purpose: orientation, schema discovery, and submission.
The tool set fully covers the enquiry lifecycle as described: understanding the service, retrieving the required fields, and submitting with confirmation. No obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated domain.