enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Noise Assessment 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. It reveals the data content and implies a read-only listing, but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, requires no authentication, or returns a snapshot. It doesn't contradict annotations (there are none), so not a contradiction, but behavioral disclosure is only implicit.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the resource ('Every field of the Noise Assessment Cost enquiry') and packs the content list plus a usage pointer. It is slightly listy but contains no fluff or repetition.
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 simple zero-parameter metadata tool, the description covers what to expect and how to connect with submit_enquiry. It doesn't specify the exact return shape (array vs. object) or clarify the role of enquiry_describe, but these are minor gaps given the simplicity.
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 takes zero parameters, and the empty input schema covers 100% of parameter definitions, meeting the baseline for no-param tools. The description adds no parameter-level detail because none is needed, and it reinforces the meaning of 'field key' for the downstream submit_enquiry 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 Noise Assessment Cost enquiry' and enumerates what is included (key, label, type, required, help text, options). It differentiates from submit_enquiry by noting answers should be passed there keyed by field key, though it lacks an explicit action verb like '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?
The description provides clear context: this tool exposes field metadata, and the pointer 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' indicates a follow-up workflow. It does not explicitly discuss when to use this versus enquiry_describe, so alternative routing is incomplete.
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 distinct role: one describes the process, one provides the field schema, and one handles submission. There is no meaningful overlap between them, so an agent can confidently select the right tool for the current step.
All names use lowercase snake_case and are readable, but the pattern is slightly inconsistent: 'enquiry_describe' and 'enquiry_fields' are noun-first, while 'submit_enquiry' is verb-first. This is a minor deviation rather than a serious problem.
Three tools is well-scoped for a focused enquiry-submission workflow. Each tool covers a necessary part of the interaction: understanding the process, inspecting the schema, and submitting with confirmation.
For the stated purpose of submitting a Noise Assessment Cost enquiry, the tool surface is complete: it explains the process, exposes the required fields, and handles the two-step consent/confirmation flow. No essential operation appears to be missing.