enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the NEBOSH Course 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 specifies what data will be returned and notes that allowed options may exist. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only introspection call, nor does it describe any side effects, error conditions, or output formatting beyond the listed field attributes.
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 compact and front-loaded, immediately naming what the tool covers and enumerating the useful attributes. Every sentence contributes: the first describes the payload, and the second ties it to the related submission tool. No filler or 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 zero-parameter metadata lookup tool, the description covers the key information an agent needs: what fields exist, what each entry contains, and how to use the results with submit_enquiry. The main gap is the lack of explicit differentiation from enquiry_describe, which could leave an agent unsure which sibling to call for a broader description of the 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, so the empty input schema is complete. The description still adds value by explaining how the returned field keys should be used with submit_enquiry, which is the relevant semantic context even though there are no parameters to document.
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 states that this tool provides every field of the NEBOSH Course Cost enquiry, including key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It is clear about the resource and the kind of data returned, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling enquiry_describe 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?
It gives a direct usage hint: pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, which connects this introspection tool to the submission workflow. It does not explicitly describe when to prefer enquiry_describe over enquiry_fields, but the context of building submission payloads is reasonably 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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct role: enquiry_describe provides the narrative context, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the actual submission. There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity.
The tools share an 'enquiry' theme but do not follow a single pattern: enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields are noun-first, while submit_enquiry is verb-first. Still, the names are readable and semantically distinguishable.
Three tools is well-scoped for this focused enquiry-submission workflow. Each tool earns its place: context, field definitions, and submission.
The toolset fully covers the enquiry lifecycle: explaining the process, defining required fields, and submitting with a two-step consent confirmation. No dead ends or obvious missing operations for the stated purpose.