enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the LEV Testing 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 burden of disclosing behavior. It transparently states what data the tool exposes and hints that it is an informational, read-only operation by saying answers should be passed to submit_enquiry rather than to this tool. It does not mention potential caveats such as response format, but for a zero-parameter introspection tool this is largely sufficient.
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 exactly what the tool returns, and the second sentence gives actionable guidance about how to use the returned field keys.
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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the returned content and how to use it with a sibling tool. It could be slightly more complete by distinguishing itself from enquiry_describe, but overall it gives an agent enough to call and apply the 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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds relevant guidance that the returned field keys should be used to key answers for submit_enquiry, which enriches the meaning of the tool's output even though the input schema is empty.
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 tool as returning every field of the LEV Testing Cost enquiry, along with each field's key, label, type, required status, help text, and options. It is specific about the resource and content, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling 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 gives useful context by telling the agent to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, implicitly indicating when this tool should be used before submission. However, it does not explicitly explain when to use this versus enquiry_describe or state any 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 clearly distinct role: enquiry_describe explains the workflow and consent, enquiry_fields provides the input schema, and submit_enquiry executes the two-step submission. There is no meaningful overlap that would cause an agent to select the wrong tool.
The names are all lowercase and readable, but they follow mixed conventions: enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields use a noun-first prefix while submit_enquiry uses verb-first. A consistent pattern like describe_enquiry, list_enquiry_fields, and submit_enquiry would be cleaner.
Three tools is well-scoped for a single enquiry submission workflow: one explainer, one schema provider, and one action tool. Each tool earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary surface area.
The tool set covers the full submission flow: understanding the process, inspecting all required fields, submitting with consent, and confirming with a token. The workflow has no dead ends within its stated scope.