enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Private Surgery 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states what the tool returns: all fields with their metadata and allowed options. It does not explicitly describe side effects, but a field-listing tool is clearly non-mutating and the description communicates its scope accurately.
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 and every word earns its place. The first sentence compactly enumerates the field attributes, and the second sentence links the output to the related submit_enquiry tool with direct usage 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 low-complexity, zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it specifies the exact content scope and how to use the result. It could be slightly stronger by clarifying how this tool relates to enquiry_describe, but the provided context is sufficient for 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 with 0 parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately adds no unnecessary parameter information.
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 states that the tool provides every field of the Private Surgery Costs enquiry along with key attributes such as label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by mentioning that answers are passed to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, though it does not explicitly contrast with 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 gives actionable usage guidance by telling the agent that answers should be passed to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, implying this tool is the source for valid keys. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus enquiry_describe, but the guidance is clear enough for the primary intended workflow.
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: enquiry_describe explains the process, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the actual submission. There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between them.
All names are snake_case and clearly related to enquiries, but the pattern is mixed: enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields use an 'enquiry_' prefix while submit_enquiry uses an '_enquiry' suffix. The names are readable and understandable, but the verb/noun order is not consistent across the set.
Three tools is well-scoped for the narrow purpose of submitting an enquiry: one to orient the agent, one to define the fields, and one to submit with confirmation handling. Each tool earns its place without redundancy or bloat.
The tool surface covers the full enquiry workflow: understanding the process, retrieving the required fields, validating and confirming submission, and handling consent. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated purpose.