enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Pest Control Prices 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 behavioral burden and it does disclose what the returned data contains, including optional values and allowed options. It doesn't explicitly state that the call has no side effects, but the read-only nature is strongly implied by the content and the submit_enquiry distinction.
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?
Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads exactly what the tool returns, and the second adds the key relationship with submit_enquiry that an agent needs to act on the result.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description fully compensates by specifying the returned metadata and how to use it. Nothing else is needed to invoke the tool correctly or to understand its role in the enquiry flow.
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 input schema has no parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 for a zero-parameter tool applies.
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 tool as returning the full field schema of the Pest Control Prices enquiry and enumerates the attributes it exposes (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). It also names submit_enquiry as the destination for answers, which distinguishes this introspection tool from that sibling.
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 second sentence gives concrete usage guidance: fetch field definitions, then pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use it, but the reference to submit_enquiry supplies enough context for an agent to choose between the two tools.
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: describe explains the process, fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the submission. There is no meaningful overlap between them.
The names are readable and all snake_case, but they mix patterns: enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields are noun-first, while submit_enquiry is verb-first. A more consistent set would be describe_enquiry, get_enquiry_fields, and submit_enquiry.
Three tools are well-scoped for a simple enquiry flow: describe the process, retrieve the fields, and submit with confirmation. Nothing feels unnecessary or missing.
The toolset fully covers the enquiry lifecycle presented by the server: understanding the process, discovering required fields, and submitting with explicit consent and confirmation. There are no obvious dead ends.