enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Postcode Council 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 provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It specifies exactly what information the tool exposes and notes that allowed options are included only 'where there are any', which adds useful nuance. It does not state return formatting or error behavior, but for a metadata/read-style tool this is reasonably transparent.
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 states exactly what the tool returns, and the second sentence explains the practical next step. No words are wasted, and the structure makes the tool's purpose immediately discoverable.
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 no-parameter metadata tool, this is nearly complete: it describes the returned fields, the domain, and the relationship to submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or describe the output envelope, but there is no output schema and the tool's nature makes these omissions minor.
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 provides no parameter-level meaning. The description nonetheless orients the agent by explaining the concept of 'field key' and how it should be used with submit_enquiry, which is helpful in a parameter-free context.
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 exposing the field definitions of the Postcode Council enquiry (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', but 'Every field of the Postcode Council enquiry' makes the resource and scope unambiguous and distinguishes it from submission-oriented siblings like submit_enquiry.
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 gives practical guidance: use this tool to discover field keys, then pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by those field keys. This implies a clear usage context, although it does not explicitly enumerate when not to use this tool or name other sibling alternatives such as enquiry_describe.
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.
The tools split into two clear clusters: the checker tools (start, answer, tree) each serve distinct roles in navigating the decision guide, and the enquiry tools (describe, fields, submit) cover explanation, schema, and submission. There is no functional overlap that would cause an agent to select the wrong tool.
All names use snake_case and are readable, but the conventions are mixed: checker_* uses a noun prefix with a trailing verb/noun, while submit_enquiry reverses the verb_noun pattern and enquiry_describe puts the domain before the verb. The inconsistency is noticeable but not chaotic.
Six tools is well-scoped for a site that combines an interactive decision guide and a form submission flow. Each tool earns its place and there is no excess or thinness.
The checker cluster fully covers the decision tree lifecycle (start, progress, inspect full tree), and the enquiry cluster fully covers explanation, schema discovery, and two-step consent-based submission. No critical dead ends or missing operations are evident for the stated purpose.