enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Plant Hire Rates 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by specifying exactly what information is returned and how the result should be consumed by submit_enquiry. It is clearly an introspection/read-style tool, and the description gives enough context about the response contents even without an output schema.
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 the tool's purpose and enumerates the returned attributes; the second adds a practical usage pointer. Every word earns its place.
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 simple parameterless metadata tool, the description is complete: it states what is returned, lists the attribute categories, and connects the output to the sibling submit_enquiry. It does not explain enquiry_describe, but that is not necessary for invoking this tool correctly.
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 schema coverage is effectively complete and the description need not explain parameters. The existing note about passing answers to submit_enquiry adds useful contextual meaning beyond the empty input 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 clearly identifies the resource ('the Plant Hire Rates enquiry') and the exact data returned: 'key, label, type, whether required, help text and the allowed options'. It is specific enough for an agent to understand what the tool provides, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling enquiry_describe.
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 implies when to use it—whenever you need the fields of the enquiry—and explicitly ties it to submit_enquiry ('Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key'). However, it does not state when not to use it or how it compares to enquiry_describe, leaving some routing to inference.
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 job: describe gives the high-level explanation, fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the actual submission. There is no real overlap or risk of selecting the wrong tool for a task.
The naming is readable but mixed: enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields use a resource-first pattern, while submit_enquiry uses a verb-first pattern. A uniform verb_noun structure like describe_enquiry, list_enquiry_fields, submit_enquiry would improve consistency.
Three tools is exactly right for this narrow, well-defined purpose: understand, inspect fields, and submit. Each tool earns its place and there is no unnecessary surface area.
The set covers the full enquiry workflow: context and consent are provided by describe, input requirements come from fields, and submit handles both validation/confirmation and final submission. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated domain.