enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Late Payment Interest 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 full burden. It discloses the content of the response (key, label, type, etc.) but does not explicitly state it is a read-only operation, mention error conditions, or describe the exact return format. While the read-only nature is obvious, the lack of explicit behavioral context warrants a moderate score.
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 wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the usage hint is appended concisely. Every sentence adds value, making it efficient and well-structured.
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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers what is returned and how to use it. However, it does not specify the exact data structure (e.g., array of objects) or any edge-case behavior, leaving minor gaps that an agent might need to infer. This is slightly below fully complete.
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 schema confirms this. Since there are no parameters to describe, the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it does not.
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 states the tool returns 'Every field of the Late Payment Interest enquiry' and enumerates the attributes (key, label, type, required, help text, options). It is specific about the resource and content, and its relationship to submit_enquiry distinguishes it from sibling tools like enquiry_describe.
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 implicitly guides usage by saying 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key', indicating that this tool is a prerequisite for submitting answers. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like enquiry_describe or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.
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: calculate executes the calculator, calculator_describe documents it, enquiry_describe explains the enquiry process, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the submission. No two tools appear to do the same thing.
Naming conventions are mixed: calculate and submit_enquiry are verb-led, while calculator_describe, enquiry_describe, and enquiry_fields are noun-led. The lack of a consistent verb_noun or noun_verb pattern makes the set feel uneven.
Five tools is well-scoped for this small site: two support the calculator workflow and three support the enquiry workflow. Each tool has a clear purpose and none are redundant.
The calculator has run and documentation coverage, and the enquiry has explanation, field schema, and a validated two-step submission process. The core user journeys are fully supported with no obvious dead ends.