enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the M365 Migration 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, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It makes clear what data is returned (keys, labels, types, required flags, help text, options) and implies a read-only metadata lookup, but it does not explicitly state absence of side effects, authentication requirements, or error behavior.
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?
One dense, well-structured sentence front-loads the resource and then enumerates the returned field properties, ending with practical downstream guidance. No unnecessary words and every clause contributes meaning.
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 lookup with no output schema, the description fully specifies what will be returned and how the result should be used with submit_enquiry. The lack of explicit mention of enquiry_describe is a minor omission and does not undermine the tool's completeness.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the description appropriately provides no parameter instructions. The relevant cross-tool guidance about passing answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key adds useful context beyond the empty schema, matching the baseline for a no-parameter tool.
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 that the tool returns every field of the M365 Migration Cost enquiry and enumerates the specific properties included (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). It clearly distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by the closing instruction, though it does not explicitly contrast with 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 explains that answers should be passed to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, establishing a clear downstream usage context for the tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare against enquiry_describe, so it falls just short of a 5.
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 process, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the submission. There is no overlap in purpose or ambiguity about which tool to call.
All names are snake_case and readable, but the pattern is slightly mixed: enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields use an object-first style while submit_enquiry uses a verb-first style. This is a minor deviation rather than a real usability problem.
Three tools is exactly right for the narrow scope of submitting an enquiry: one to learn about the process, one to get field definitions, and one to perform the submission. No tool feels redundant or missing.
The tool surface fully covers the enquiry workflow: contextual explanation, field discovery, and two-step confirmation-based submission. There are no obvious gaps such as missing validation, consent handling, or a dead-end in the submission process.