enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Legionella Assessment 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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return content in detail: field keys, labels, types, required flags, help text, and allowed options. There are no hidden side effects or destructive behaviors indicated, and the description's enumeration effectively sets expectations for what the tool returns.
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 the tool's core purpose and enumerates the returned attributes; the second sentence immediately gives actionable usage context. Every word 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?
For a zero-parameter, read-only metadata tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what data is returned and how it connects to submit_enquiry. A slight gap is that it does not clarify how enquiry_describe differs, which could help an agent choose between the siblings, but this is minor given the clarity of the description.
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 baseline is 4. The description adds useful semantic context by explaining that field keys are the values to use when constructing answers for submit_enquiry. There are no parameters needing further elaboration.
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 what the tool provides: every field of the Legionella Assessment Cost enquiry, including key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. The resource is specific and the content is enumerated concretely. It does not explicitly use a verb like 'retrieve' or 'list', but the meaning is unambiguous and distinguishable from submit_enquiry.
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 practical routing guidance by stating that answers should be passed to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. This implies when to use the tool: before submitting an enquiry. However, it does not explicitly contrast with enquiry_describe or state when not to use this tool.
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: describing the enquiry process, providing the field schema, and submitting the enquiry. There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between them.
All names are readable snake_case and share the 'enquiry' theme, but the pattern is mixed: 'enquiry_describe' and 'enquiry_fields' place the noun first, while 'submit_enquiry' uses a verb-noun structure. This is not chaotic, but it is not consistently verb_noun.
Three tools is the right size for this narrowly scoped enquiry submission flow. Each tool serves a necessary step: understand the process, get the schema, and submit with confirmation.
The tool set fully covers the enquiry lifecycle for this domain: explaining what happens, retrieving required fields, and submitting with a two-step consent confirmation. There are no obvious gaps that would prevent an agent from completing the intended task.