enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Motor Rewind 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 of behavioral disclosure. It explains what data the tool exposes and hints that it is a metadata lookup, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, describe the response shape, or mention any side effects. The absence of side-effect disclosure is a moderate gap.
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 one efficient sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose, enumerates the returned metadata attributes, and closes with a practical pointer to submit_enquiry. Every clause adds value and there is no redundancy.
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 no-parameter metadata query, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what field attributes will be available, which is sufficient for using the result with submit_enquiry. It does not specify the exact output representation, but given the absence of an output schema, the description covers the essential information.
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?
This tool takes zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about inputs. The baseline of 4 applies: the description correctly stays focused on the output for this parameterless 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 clearly identifies the resource ('Every field of the Motor Rewind Cost enquiry') and enumerates what is included: key, label, type, required, help text, and allowed options. It distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by stating that answers should be keyed by field key, but it lacks an explicit verb such as 'returns' or 'lists'.
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?
It gives clear context for when this tool is relevant: when you need the field structure of the enquiry. It also explicitly connects to submit_enquiry by instructing that answers should be passed keyed by field key, but it does not 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.
The three tools have clearly separate roles: enquiry_describe provides instructions, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the action. There is no functional overlap, and the descriptions reinforce the intended usage order.
All names use snake_case, but the pattern is not uniform: enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields share a noun-prefix grouping while submit_enquiry follows verb-noun. This is readable and somewhat predictable, but the syntactic inconsistency prevents a higher score.
Three tools is well-scoped for the single, focused flow of submitting a motor rewind enquiry. Each tool covers an essential step—orientation, field discovery, and submission—so none feels redundant or missing.
For the stated purpose, the tool set covers the full journey: describe the process, retrieve the form fields, and submit with consent and confirmation. The two-step submission handles validation and consent in-band, so there are no dead ends or obvious gaps.