enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Lease Extension Quotes 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 of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only metadata retrieval by listing what the tool returns and points to submit_enquiry for actual submission. Still, it does not explicitly state that this tool has no side effects or that it requires no authentication, which would be more 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?
The description is compact and front-loaded: the first sentence enumerates exactly what information is returned, and the second provides a routing instruction. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.
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 is complete: it lists the return fields and explains how to use the result with the submit_enquiry sibling. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call and use this tool correctly.
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, so the schema imposes no burden. The description adds useful semantic context by explaining that answers to submit_enquiry must be keyed by the field keys this tool returns, giving meaning to the concept of a field key.
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 states a specific action and resource: it returns every field of the Lease Extension Quotes enquiry, including key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. This clearly distinguishes it from submit_enquiry, which is about submitting answers rather than inspecting fields.
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 directive: use these field keys to pass answers to submit_enquiry. This orients the agent toward the correct workflow. However, it does not explicitly explain when to use this tool over enquiry_describe, leaving a small gap in alternative selection.
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 three tools have mostly distinct roles: enquiry_describe explains the process, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the actual submission. However, enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields are both informational and could be confused by an agent deciding where to start.
Tool names follow a readable snake_case convention, and two share an enquiry_ prefix. The pattern is slightly mixed because enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields use noun-first naming while submit_enquiry uses verb-first naming, but the intent is still clear.
Three tools is minimal but appropriate for the narrow purpose of submitting a lease extension enquiry. Each tool maps to a necessary step: understand, get fields, and submit. The count does not feel bloated, though it is at the low end.
The set covers the core enquiry lifecycle well: introductory guidance, field discovery, and a two-step confirmed submission. A minor gap is that there is no tool to check submission status or resend the confirmation email, which could leave an agent unable to resolve failures.