enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Piling Costs 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 disclosure burden. It transparently specifies what the tool exposes: each field's key, label, type, whether required, help text, and options. It does not explicitly state that the call is read-only or describe the exact response container shape, but for a zero-parameter introspection tool this is a modest omission.
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 packs the core output contract concisely, and the second provides actionable integration guidance.
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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: which fields are returned, what attributes each field has, and how those keys feed into submit_enquiry. It does not spell out whether the output is an array or keyed object, nor does it compare itself to enquiry_describe, but neither gap prevents correct invocation.
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 is empty, so there are no parameters to document. The description still adds semantic value by explaining the returned field attributes and by instructing the agent to key submit_enquiry answers by field key.
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 as the fields of the Piling Costs enquiry and lists the attributes each field carries: key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. It does not use an explicit verb like 'list' or 'return', but 'Every field of...' makes the operation obvious. It differentiates from submit_enquiry by telling the agent to pass answers keyed by these field keys.
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 downstream guidance: use the returned field keys to construct answers for submit_enquiry. This implies this tool should be called before submission. However, it does not explicitly contrast with enquiry_describe or state when not to use this tool.
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 performs the actual submission. There is no meaningful overlap between them.
All names share the 'enquiry' domain and are readable, but the word order is slightly inconsistent: 'enquiry_describe' and 'enquiry_fields' are noun-first, while 'submit_enquiry' is verb-first.
Three tools is a tight, well-scoped set for a simple enquiry submission flow. Each tool earns its place and there is no apparent bloat.
The surface fully covers the enquiry workflow: understanding the process, retrieving the required fields, and submitting with confirmation. No critical step is missing.