enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the MOT Software 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?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does so by stating exactly what the tool returns (field metadata, including the conditional 'where there are any' for allowed options) and implying a read-only, schema-inspection behavior. It does not discuss auth or error cases, but for a zero-parameter description tool this is not a major 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?
Two sentences: the first front-loads the complete list of returned attributes, and the second adds actionable usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or repetition of the title.
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?
Given zero parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and call the tool correctly. It names the resource, the full set of returned attributes, and the downstream consumer (submit_enquiry).
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 full schema coverage, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description adds useful cross-tool semantics by instructing that the returned field keys should be used as the keys when calling submit_enquiry.
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 ('the MOT Software enquiry') and enumerates what will be returned (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options), so an agent can tell it is a field-schema/survey-definition tool. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'fetch' and does not differentiate it from the sibling enquiry_describe, so it falls short of a 5.
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 a concrete usage context: results should be used to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it with enquiry_describe, but the instruction about submit_enquiry makes the intended workflow clear.
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 compare_* tools are clearly distinct: criteria, options, and the full table each target a different aspect of the comparison data. The enquiry_* tools also separate explanation, schema, and submission. No two tools appear to do the same thing.
All names use snake_case and are grouped into compare_ and enquiry_ prefixes, which is readable and predictable. The main deviation is enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields placing the noun first, while submit_enquiry and compare_* follow verb_first, but this is minor and does not cause confusion.
Six tools is a well-scoped set for this server: three tools cover the comparison table surface and three cover the enquiry flow. Every tool earns its place with no redundant or filler tools.
The comparison domain is fully covered: users can list criteria, list options, and view the full criteria-by-option table. The enquiry flow is also complete with an explainer, field schema, and a two-step submit process including consent and confirmation.