enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Machinery Repair 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 provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It openly discloses what the tool returns—field metadata including requiredness and allowed options—and explains how the output should be consumed. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or describe side effects, but this is clearly an introspection tool and the content disclosure is strong.
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 compact sentences with no filler. It front-loads the resource, gives a structured list of returned attributes, and ends with a concrete usage instruction. Every sentence 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, no-output-schema introspection tool, the description is complete: it states what the tool returns, the attributes included, and how to use those attributes when calling submit_enquiry. Nothing essential to invoking the tool correctly is missing.
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 description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing missing at the parameter level. The description adds useful downstream context by noting that field keys should be used when passing answers to submit_enquiry, which aids correct sequencing even though it is not strictly parameter semantics.
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 resource as 'Every field of the Machinery Repair Quotes enquiry' and enumerates the exact contents: key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. It does not use an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list', and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling enquiry_describe, but the field-focused scope is unambiguous.
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 provides indirect usage guidance by telling the agent to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, implying this tool should be used to discover valid field keys before submission. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus enquiry_describe, and there are no clear exclusions or alternative-selection conditions.
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 overall process, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the submission. There is no overlap or realistic confusion between them.
All names are lowercase snake_case and share the 'enquiry' domain, making them predictable. However, enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields are noun-first while submit_enquiry is verb-first, so the pattern is not perfectly consistent.
Three tools is exactly right for this focused enquiry-submission domain. Each tool earns its place: orientation, field metadata, and submission.
The tool set fully covers the intended workflow from reading about the process to fetching fields to submitting with confirmation. No obvious lifecycle gaps exist for a simple enquiry form.