enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Payroll Dates 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 burden of disclosing behavior. It describes the output content (key, label, type, required, help text, options) but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or mention whether any authentication or prerequisites exist. The content strongly implies a safe metadata query, but the lack of explicit safety disclosure keeps this at a minimum viable level.
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, front-loaded sentence that lists the exact output attributes and then gives a practical cross-reference to submit_enquiry. Every phrase earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy.
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 metadata tool, the description is nearly complete: it names the enquiry, enumerates the returned attributes, and connects to the follow-up submission action. Since there is no output schema, the description appropriately explains the return shape. It could have explicitly stated that no submission occurs via this tool, but the sentence about passing answers to submit_enquiry makes that practically clear.
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 the schema is trivially fully covered and the baseline is 4. The description adds useful downstream context about using field keys with submit_enquiry, but there are no input parameters for the description to clarify.
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 Payroll Dates enquiry') and enumerates what the field metadata contains. It lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists', but the meaning is unambiguous and it distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by explaining where answers should go.
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 usage context: it supplies the field keys that must be used when calling submit_enquiry. This implicitly tells the agent to fetch the fields before submitting answers. It does not explicitly address alternatives like enquiry_describe, but the downstream relationship is clear enough.
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 runs the calculator, one describes the calculator, one explains the enquiry flow, one provides enquiry fields, and one submits the enquiry. Even the two 'describe' tools are cleanly separated by subject matter and explicit descriptions.
The names mix verb-only ('calculate'), noun-first with verb suffix ('calculator_describe', 'enquiry_describe'), and verb-noun ('submit_enquiry'), with 'enquiry_fields' following a noun-noun pattern. The style is readable and consistently lowercase/underscore, but the naming conventions are not uniform.
Five tools is well-scoped for a server that provides a single deadline calculator plus a guided enquiry submission flow. Each tool earns its place, and there is no bloat or sense of missing infrastructure.
The calculator has both a run tool and a describe tool to expose assumptions, and the enquiry flow has describe, fields, and a two-step submit tool with confirmation handling. The surface covers the full lifecycle for the server's apparent purpose.