enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Render Cost Calculator 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 disclosure burden. It makes clear this is an introspection-style tool that returns field definitions, and the instruction to pass answers elsewhere signals that it does not itself submit. It could additionally state that it is read-only or describe ordering/format, but the core behavior is transparent enough.
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 deliver a complete, front-loaded list of what the tool returns and immediately connect it to the follow-up action. There is no filler or redundancy.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description appropriately enumerates the returned field attributes: key, label, type, required, help text, and allowed options. It also explains how the output should be consumed. A short example or explicit statement that the tool takes no arguments would make it fully complete, but nothing critical is missing.
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, and the description explains how to use its output as input to submit_enquiry, which is the relevant semantic information. Since there are no parameters to document, the baseline of 4 applies and is met.
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 returning every field of the Render Cost Calculator enquiry, with a precise list of the metadata included. It also links the output to submit_enquiry, helping distinguish it from the submission step. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like enquiry_describe or calculator_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 provides a clear context: use this tool to learn the enquiry fields and their keys, then pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by those field keys. It implies a workflow but does not state when not to use it or name alternative tools for similar lookup needs.
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: running the calculator, describing the calculator, describing the enquiry flow, listing enquiry fields, and submitting an enquiry. The descriptions reinforce these boundaries, so an agent should not confuse one tool with another.
Names are readable and use a shared domain vocabulary, but the patterns are mixed: 'calculate' is a bare verb, 'calculator_describe' and 'enquiry_describe' are noun-verb, while 'submit_enquiry' is verb-noun. This is inconsistent but still predictable enough to navigate.
Five tools is well-scoped for a small calculator/enquiry server. Each tool covers a necessary step in the workflow—calculation, description, field lookup, and submission—without unnecessary duplication or bloat.
The tool set fully covers the apparent domain: it lets agents understand the calculator, run it, understand the enquiry process, retrieve the required fields, and submit an enquiry with consent and confirmation. There are no obvious dead ends or missing lifecycle steps.