enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Measured Survey 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 burden and states the tool returns every field and its attributes, which is a clear behavioral description. It doesn't mention side effects, but a field-listing operation has none implied. It doesn't discuss auth/rate limits, a minor omission for a presumably safe query.
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?
Two sentences, no filler. First sentence lists the payload, second sentence gives a forward pointer to submitting answers.
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?
No output schema exists, but the description enumerates exactly what the response will contain and how the field keys are meant to be used in submit_enquiry. Since there are no parameters, any agent can invoke it successfully from this definition.
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 input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameters to explain. Per baseline for 0-param tools, this is fully adequate.
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 names a specific resource ('Measured Survey Cost enquiry') and enumerates the exact components returned (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options), making its function unmistakable. It also links to submit_enquiry, setting it apart from the submission tool.
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 statement 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' gives a clear usage context: call this before submitting to learn valid keys. It doesn't explicitly contrast with enquiry_describe, so it stops short of fully explicit alternatives/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 purpose: enquiry_describe explains the process, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the submission. There is no functional overlap or ambiguity.
The names are readable and all relate to the 'enquiry' domain, but the pattern is mixed: enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields use a prefix pattern while submit_enquiry is verb-first. Not chaotic, but not a consistent verb_noun convention.
Three tools cover the full enquiry submission flow without redundancy: orientation, schema discovery, and submission. The count is well-scoped for the server's narrow purpose.
The tool set covers the complete lifecycle needed here: understand the process, inspect the required fields, and submit with consent and confirmation. There are no obvious gaps or dead ends for the declared domain.