enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Oil Tank Removal 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 provided, the description carries the burden of conveying that this is a read-only introspection tool, and it does imply that by describing the field metadata rather than any mutation. The final sentence, 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key,' clarifies that this tool does not itself accept or submit answers. However, it does not address output format, potential errors, or dynamic behavior, so it is adequate but not rich.
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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the complete list of returned attributes, and the second sentence adds the essential workflow connection to submit_enquiry. Every word earns its place.
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 that there is no output schema, the description adequately compensates by enumerating the fields an agent can expect: key, label, type, required, help text, and options. It also connects the output to the sibling tool submit_enquiry, completing the practical loop. It does not describe the exact response envelope, but for a zero-parameter metadata lookup this is sufficient.
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, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description appropriately focuses instead on what the returned field metadata contains, which is the relevant information an agent needs. A baseline of 4 is warranted for a 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 (Oil Tank Removal Cost enquiry fields) and enumerates the exact contents returned: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It stops short of an explicit retrieval verb like 'lists' or 'returns', but the meaning is unambiguous. The mention of submit_enquiry helps distinguish it from the submission 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?
The description provides actionable context: an agent should use this tool to discover the field keys and then pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by those keys. This implicitly tells the agent when to use it and how it fits into the workflow. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or contrast it with enquiry_describe, but the usage context is 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 three tools have clearly distinct roles: describe the enquiry process, provide the field schema, and submit the enquiry. There is slight potential confusion because enquiry_describe and submit_enquiry both explain the submission flow, but their actual functions are easy to tell apart.
The shared 'enquiry' root gives some thematic consistency, but the naming patterns are mixed: enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields lead with the noun, while submit_enquiry leads with the verb. This makes the set feel inconsistent and less predictable than a uniform verb_noun convention.
Three tools is a well-scoped size for this narrow purpose: one to explain the flow, one to define the input schema, and one to perform submission. Each tool earns its place and there is no redundancy or bloat.
The tool set fully covers the enquiry lifecycle: an agent can understand the process, fetch all required fields, validate and submit, and handle the confirmation step. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations within the stated domain.