enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Probate 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 provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does so by specifying exactly what the tool returns: all fields with key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. The zero-parameter signature also makes it evident this is a read-only lookup, and the description adds detail about the response contents rather than leaving them to inference.
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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core claim ('Every field of the Probate Costs enquiry') and then lists the relevant attributes. The second sentence adds actionable guidance without fluff. Every clause earns its place, and the structure makes it easy to scan.
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?
Given that the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it states what data is returned and how it should be consumed by submit_enquiry. The mention of 'allowed options where there are any' covers optionality in the response. There are no unexplained inputs or unexplained outputs that would prevent an agent from using the 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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document in terms of inputs. The schema coverage is effectively 100% because the schema is empty. The baseline of 4 applies here since parameter semantics are moot and the description correctly focuses on the output contract instead.
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: every field of the Probate Costs enquiry, including key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It goes beyond the title by enumerating the exact data returned, making the tool's purpose easy to grasp. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling enquiry_describe, relying on the reader to infer the difference.
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 concrete usage guidance: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key.' This tells the agent how to use the returned data and connects the tool to a sibling workflow. It does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over enquiry_describe, but the purpose is clear enough that the usage context is reasonably well defined.
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: one explains the enquiry process, one provides the field schema, and one submits the enquiry. There is no overlap or ambiguity about which tool to call.
All names are lowercase and snake_case, but the pattern is mixed: two tools begin with 'enquiry_' and one begins with the verb 'submit'. This is readable but not as predictable as a consistent verb_noun or noun_verb convention.
Three tools is well-scoped for the stated purpose of enquiring about Probate Costs. Each tool earns its place: describe, fields, and submit form a complete minimal workflow.
The tool set fully covers the enquiry lifecycle: orientation, schema discovery, submission with validation, user confirmation, and final submission. There are no obvious missing operations for the domain.