enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the IT Support Cost 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 carries the transparency burden. It discloses what data the tool exposes and strongly implies a read-only metadata lookup, but it never explicitly states that it returns data without side effects or describes the response format. This is adequate but not fully 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?
One dense sentence front-loads the resource and its contents, then closes with a practical pointer to submit_enquiry. Every word adds value and there is no repetition of schema information.
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 metadata tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return information: field identity, type, requiredness, help text, options, and how to key answers for submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly state the container format of the returned fields, a minor but non-blocking gap.
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, so there are no parameter meanings to document. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate because there is nothing missing at the parameter level.
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 ('IT Support Cost Calculator enquiry') and enumerates the exact contents: key, label, type, required status, help text, and options. It does not use an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists', and it does not directly contrast with sibling enquiry_describe, so it falls just short of a 5.
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 practical usage cue: pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, implying this tool should be consulted before submitting. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it with alternatives like enquiry_describe.
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 maps to a distinct function: running the calculator, describing the calculator, describing the enquiry flow, listing enquiry fields, and submitting an enquiry. There is no practical overlap between the calculation tools and the enquiry tools, and the two describe tools cover different objects.
The set mixes standalone verbs (calculate), verb_noun compounds (submit_enquiry), and noun-initial names (calculator_describe, enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields). The naming is readable and consistently snake_case, but it does not follow a single predictable pattern.
Five tools is well-scoped for a single calculator plus enquiry workflow. Each tool covers a necessary step or piece of information, and none feel redundant or extraneous.
The surface covers the full user journey: understand the calculator, compute a cost, understand the enquiry process, inspect the fields, and submit with two-step confirmation. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated purpose.