enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Invoice Factoring 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?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states what data the tool exposes, but does not explicitly mention that it is a read-only metadata lookup or describe edge cases such as what happens when an enquiry has no optional fields. This leaves some behavioral ambiguity.
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, front-loaded sentences. The first states the content scope and the second states how the result should be used. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.
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 tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys what an agent will receive and how to apply it downstream. It could be more explicit about the response format, but the description covers the essential call context.
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 is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful semantic context by explaining that field keys are the link to submit_enquiry, even though there are no parameters 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 identifies the exact resource (Invoice Factoring Cost enquiry fields) and enumerates the field attributes returned. It does not use an explicit verb like 'lists' or 'returns', but the meaning is unambiguous and it is clearly distinct from submit_enquiry and the calculator 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 explains that field keys from this tool should be used to pass answers to submit_enquiry, giving the agent a clear integration path. It does not explicitly say when not to use this tool versus enquiry_describe or calculator_describe, but the intended workflow is evident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.