enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the P11D Changes 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 must carry the behavioral burden. It strongly implies a read-only metadata operation by describing fields and pointing submission to a different tool, but it never explicitly states that it has no side effects or mentions any operational caveats.
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 sentence plus one targeted instruction; every clause adds information about either the output contents or how to use the result. There is no filler 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 zero-input, no-output-schema metadata tool, the description enumerates the expected return information and connects it to submission. It could be more complete by distinguishing itself from enquiry_describe, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.
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 the schema coverage is 100%, so there is almost nothing for the description to add. The mention of field keys supports the submit_enquiry link, but no parameter-level detail is needed beyond the empty schema.
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 identifies the resource ('P11D Changes enquiry') and enumerates exactly what is exposed: key, label, type, required, help text, and allowed options. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'lists' or 'returns', and it does not contrast with the sibling enquiry_describe tool, 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 instruction to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key gives clear downstream context for when this tool's output is needed. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over checker_* or enquiry_describe, but the intended workflow 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 checker tools are distinct: start begins, answer advances step-by-step, and tree provides the full decision graph for offline reasoning. The enquiry tools also separate concerns: describe explains semantics, fields provides schema, and submit performs the action. checker_tree and checker_answer overlap slightly in information content, but their intended uses are clearly differentiated.
The checker_* and enquiry_* prefixes create clear clusters, and the suffixes are mostly readable and predictable. submit_enquiry breaks the prefix pattern by placing the verb before the noun, and tree/fields are nouns while start/answer/describe are verbs, but the conventions are still coherent enough to navigate.
Six tools is a well-scoped count for a server covering two related workflows: decision-tree navigation and enquiry submission. Each tool serves a distinct and necessary step, with no redundancy or bloat.
The checker workflow is complete: start, step-by-step answering, and a full tree for end-to-end reasoning. The enquiry workflow is also complete: explanation, field schema, permission/consent handling, and two-step submission. There are no obvious dead ends or missing lifecycle steps for the stated domain.