enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the ISO Certification 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 behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the output shape (key, label, type, required, help text, options) and implies a read-only retrieval behavior. It does not discuss errors, permissions, or side effects, but for a parameterless field-listing tool this is reasonably transparent.
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 carry all necessary information: the first defines what fields are returned and the second explains how to use them. There is no filler, and the most important detail—what the tool provides—is front-loaded.
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?
With no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating the return fields and linking to the downstream submit_enquiry workflow. It is complete enough to call the tool correctly, though it leaves the sibling enquiry_describe unaddressed, which is a minor gap given the sibling list.
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 and an empty input schema, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The zero-parameter baseline is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the returned data rather than inputs.
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 a specific resource ('every field of the ISO Certification Cost enquiry') and lists the exact contents (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). It also separates this tool from submit_enquiry by telling the agent that answers go there keyed by field key. This is a clear, specific definition that names what the tool exposes.
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 a clear workflow: obtain fields here, then pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. This tells the agent when to use the tool relative to one sibling. It does not mention enquiry_describe or explicitly state when not to use this tool, so it lacks full alternative exclusion but provides solid context.
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 process, one provides the field schema, and one submits the enquiry. There is no meaningful overlap between them.
The names are readable and all reference 'enquiry', but the pattern is inconsistent: 'enquiry_describe' and 'enquiry_fields' use a noun-first style while 'submit_enquiry' uses a verb-first style. A fully consistent verb_noun set would be clearer.
Three tools is well-scoped for a focused enquiry-submission flow. Each tool addresses a distinct step: understanding, schema retrieval, and submission.
The tool surface fully covers the enquiry submission lifecycle: describing the process, exposing required fields, validating consent, and submitting with confirmation. No obvious missing operations are needed for this narrow domain.