enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Party Wall Quotes 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does this well by specifying exactly what information is returned and its scope ('Every field'). As a non-mutating metadata/introspection tool, side effects are unlikely, and nothing in the description suggests otherwise.
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: the first sentence defines the tool's scope and output content, while the second sentence provides actionable usage guidance. No words are wasted.
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, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the key facts: what fields are returned and how those field keys connect to submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly position itself against enquiry_describe, but the field-specific content is sufficient for an agent to make a correct selection.
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 there is no parameter documentation burden; the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds useful cross-tool context by clarifying that the field keys returned here are the same keys to use when calling submit_enquiry.
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 Party Wall Quotes enquiry') and enumerates the exact attributes returned: key, label, type, required, help text, and options. It lacks an explicit action verb like 'Returns' or 'Lists,' and it does not directly distinguish itself from enquiry_describe, though the field-level scope is apparent.
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 implies this tool is useful for discovering the fields needed for submission. However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus enquiry_describe or provide exclusion criteria, so usage guidance remains mostly inferred.
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: one explains the process, one provides the form schema, and one performs the submission. There is no overlap in purpose, and the descriptions reinforce which tool to call when.
The names are readable and all lowercase, but they mix patterns: enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields are resource-first, while submit_enquiry is verb-first. A more consistent convention would be describe_enquiry, fields_enquiry, submit_enquiry.
Three tools is appropriate for this narrow workflow: explaining the service, listing the required fields, and submitting the enquiry. Every tool earns its place and there is no bloat.
The tool surface fully covers the enquiry submission lifecycle for this server's stated purpose. It includes onboarding context, schema discovery, and a two-step submission flow with confirmation handling.