enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Knee Replacement 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 must carry the behavioral burden. It clearly implies a read-only metadata lookup by describing what fields are returned, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is side-effect free, whether any permissions are needed, or how the output is structured beyond the listed attributes.
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 compactly enumerates the returned field attributes, and the second gives a critical usage hint linked to the sibling tool. This is appropriately sized and 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?
For a zero-parameter metadata tool, the description covers what is returned and how to use the field keys downstream. The main missing piece is clarification of how this tool relates to the sibling enquiry_describe, which could create mild ambiguity about which descriptive tool to use.
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?
There are zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description still adds useful context by noting that answers should be keyed by the field keys returned here, which helps the agent understand how the output connects to submit_enquiry.
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 tool as returning metadata for every field of the Knee Replacement Cost enquiry, and lists the exact attributes included. It does not use a strong action verb like 'lists' or 'returns', and it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling enquiry_describe, so it stops 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 sentence 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' provides concrete downstream usage, making it clear the tool is meant to be consulted before submitting an enquiry. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of enquiry_describe, but the workflow implication is strong.
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: enquiry_describe explains the process, enquiry_fields provides the data schema, and submit_enquiry performs the actual submission. There is no meaningful overlap in their purposes.
The tools all include the word 'enquiry' and use snake_case, but the pattern is inconsistent: 'enquiry_describe' and 'enquiry_fields' are object-first while 'submit_enquiry' is verb-first. This mixed convention is readable but not predictable.
Three tools is the right scope for a single, narrow enquiry submission flow. Each tool earns its place: one to orient, one to define the schema, and one to submit.
The set covers the full lifecycle of the enquiry: understanding what it is, discovering the required fields, and submitting with consent and confirmation. No obvious missing operations are needed for the stated purpose.