enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the New Employment Rules 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 it clearly discloses what the tool produces: every field's key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It also conveys the relationship to submit_enquiry. It does not mention return formatting or edge cases, but for a no-parameter, read-only schema tool the disclosed behavior is adequate.
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 entire definition is two sentences with no filler: the first packs the full scope and content of the returned fields, and the second adds the integration hint with submit_enquiry. Every phrase contributes information.
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 introspection tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is returned, the level of detail, and how to use the result with a sibling tool. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.
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?
There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds relevant semantic value by stating that answers passed to submit_enquiry must be keyed by field key, clarifying how the returned keys are meant to be used.
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 specifies the resource and content: 'Every field of the New Employment Rules enquiry' with key, label, type, required, help text, and options. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'return', but the intent is unmistakable. It distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by explaining that answers are keyed by field key, though it does not contrast with enquiry_describe.
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 instruction 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' implies this tool is the source of authoritative field keys before submission, which gives useful context. It does not explicitly state when to choose this over enquiry_describe or other siblings, nor does it give exclusions. The usage guidance is therefore present but indirect.
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 checker_* and enquiry_* groups are clearly separated by domain, and within each group the tools serve distinct purposes: start, tree, and answer are interactive versus reference, while describe, fields, and submit map to explanation, schema, and action. The only slight ambiguity is between checker_answer and checker_tree, since both can determine next steps, but their intended usage contexts are different enough.
Tools use consistent snake_case and group prefixes: checker_* and enquiry_*. However, the verb/noun ordering varies: checker_start and checker_answer are noun-verb, checker_tree and enquiry_fields are noun-noun, and submit_enquiry is verb-noun. This is a minor deviation rather than chaotic mixing.
Six tools is well-scoped for the server's two clear workflows: an interactive decision guide and an enquiry submission flow. Each tool earns its place with no obvious redundancy or bloat.
The checker workflow is complete with a starting point, full tree, and step-by-step traversal. The enquiry workflow covers explanation, schema, and validated two-step submission with consent handling, so there are no obvious dead ends or missing operations.