enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Landlord Database Check 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool exposes every field of the enquiry and lists the specific metadata included, which is meaningful for an agent. It does not describe the exact response envelope or side-effect profile, but for a zero-input metadata-listing tool this level of disclosure is adequate.
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 front-loads what the tool returns, and the second sentence adds the practical relationship to submit_enquiry. Every clause earns its place, and phrasing like 'where there are any' adds useful precision about optional options.
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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description clearly communicates the return contents and the downstream use of the data. It is complete enough for an agent to know why to call it and what to expect. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly contrasting with enquiry_describe, but that is not essential given the simplicity of the tool.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. The relevant semantic context—that the returned field keys are intended for use with submit_enquiry—is present, which is helpful.
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: every field of the Landlord Database Check enquiry, and enumerates the attributes returned (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). It lacks an explicit verb such as 'returns' or 'lists', and it does not directly distinguish itself from sibling tool enquiry_describe, so it is clear but not perfectly differentiated.
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?
Usage is implied through the instruction to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, which suggests this tool is meant to supply the keys needed for submission. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus sibling tools like enquiry_describe or checker_tree, and no when-not-to-use guidance.
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.
The tool purposes are mostly distinct: checker_start begins the guide, checker_answer advances it, and checker_tree provides the full decision tree for reasoning. There is minor overlap between checker_answer and checker_tree, but the descriptions clarify their intended uses enough to avoid serious misselection.
Naming is readable but not fully consistent: checker tools use a checker_ prefix, while enquiry tools mostly use an enquiry_ prefix, and submit_enquiry reverses the pattern to verb_noun. The mixed orientation is understandable but lacks a single predictable convention.
With 6 tools covering two well-defined workflows—the landlord checker decision guide and the enquiry submission process—the count feels appropriately scoped. Each tool earns its place without redundancy or bloat.
The checker workflow is fully covered by start, answer, and tree, allowing both interactive and end-to-end reasoning. The enquiry workflow is also complete with describe, fields, and submit covering explanation, data collection, validation, consent, and submission.