enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Interceptor Cleaning 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 explaining behavior. It states what information is returned and implies a read-only, introspection-only role by directing submission to submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly say 'read-only' or mention side effects, but nothing in the wording suggests mutation or other hidden behavior.
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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence enumerates the returned contents, and the second connects those contents to the next action, making it both concise and well-structured.
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 parameterless metadata-lookup tool, the description sufficiently covers what is returned and how the result should be used. The only notable gap is the lack of any contrast with enquiry_describe, but this is minor given the tool's simplicity.
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 input schema has zero parameters, and the rule for no-parameter tools is a baseline of 4. The description appropriately adds no parameter-specific details because there are none to document.
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 (the Interceptor Cleaning Cost enquiry) and enumerates exactly what the tool returns: field key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It implicitly separates itself from submit_enquiry by positioning the output as the keys for submission, though it does not directly contrast 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?
There is a concrete usage hint: pass the returned field keys when calling submit_enquiry. However, the description does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over the sibling enquiry_describe or when not to use it, so the selection logic is left mostly to inference.
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 workflow, one provides the field schema, and one submits the enquiry. There is no meaningful overlap even though all tools relate to the same enquiry process.
enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields share a consistent prefix, but submit_enquiry flips to a verb-first pattern. The names are readable and predictable enough, but the convention is not fully consistent across the set.
Three tools is exactly right for this narrow, single-purpose enquiry workflow. Each tool serves a necessary step: understanding the process, fetching the schema, and submitting with confirmation.
The tool set fully covers the enquiry lifecycle for this domain: discovery, field requirements, validation, consent, and confirmation. There are no obvious missing operations for a simple enquiry submission flow.