enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Latent Defects Insurance 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 provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden; it describes a read-only enumeration of fields and their metadata, which is transparent enough for this simple introspection tool. It does not discuss edge cases such as missing help text or output ordering, but these are minor for a parameterless listing tool.
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 pack the full output contract and the downstream usage without filler. The content is front-loaded as a single clear spec, and every sentence earns its place.
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?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description explains the return contents in enough detail for an agent to call it and interpret the result, and it situates the result in the submission workflow. Nothing essential is missing for a task of this complexity.
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 the input schema already covers that fully, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful cross-tool semantics by saying field keys are the keys to use when passing answers to submit_enquiry, but no further parameter documentation is needed.
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 ('the Latent Defects Insurance Cost enquiry') and the exact contents returned: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It is less explicit as an imperative action and does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling enquiry_describe, so it stops short of 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?
It gives actionable context by telling the agent to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, establishing the tool's role in the workflow. It does not state when not to use it or compare it to enquiry_describe, so the guidance is clear but not fully explicit on alternatives.
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 distinct role: enquiry_describe explains the process, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the submission. There is mild overlap because submit_enquiry's description restates process details, but an agent should be able to select the right tool for the task.
All names use lowercase snake_case and share the 'enquiry' root, but the pattern is mixed: enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields are noun-first while submit_enquiry is verb-first. It is readable and predictable enough, though not a consistent verb_noun convention.
Three tools is well-scoped for the narrow purpose of submitting a Latent Defects Insurance Cost enquiry. Each tool covers a necessary part of the workflow: understanding, schema, and submission, so no tool feels redundant or missing.
The tool surface fully covers the enquiry lifecycle for this server: it explains the process, exposes all form fields with validation details, and handles the two-step consent and confirmation flow. There are no obvious dead ends for an agent guiding a user through submission.