enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Right to Work Wizard 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only retrieval of field metadata and describes the content in detail, but it does not explicitly state that the operation has no side effects, requires no authentication, or how the result is structured. This is adequate but not fully 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?
Two sentences with no waste. The first sentence packs in the full scope and content of the response, and the second provides a clear workflow connection to submit_enquiry. Every sentence earns its place and the key information is front-loaded.
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 zero-parameter metadata tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently communicates what the agent will receive and how to use it downstream. It could be more explicit about the exact return shape (array vs. object), but the enumerated fields and the submit_enquiry linkage make it largely complete.
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 schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds a useful semantic link by noting that answers should be keyed by the returned field keys, even though there are no parameters to document.
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 names the specific resource (Right to Work Wizard enquiry fields) and enumerates the exact content returned: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve', but the meaning is clear and it differentiates itself from submit_enquiry by pointing to how answers should be keyed.
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 explaining how the returned field keys should be used when calling submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly contrast this tool with sibling tools like enquiry_describe or checker_*, so the 'when to use vs alternatives' guidance is partial rather than complete.
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 clear role: checker_start and checker_answer drive step-by-step wizard traversal, checker_tree provides the full decision tree, and the enquiry_* tools cover explanation, schema, and submission. No two tools overlap enough to cause selection errors.
Names use lowercase snake_case and domain prefixes (checker_/enquiry_), which helps, but the grammatical pattern is mixed: checker_tree and enquiry_fields are noun phrases, checker_start and checker_answer are imperative-ish, enquiry_describe is object-verb, and submit_enquiry flips to verb-object. The grouping is readable but not a consistent verb_noun convention.
Six tools is a well-scoped count for the server's purpose: three for the wizard decision guide and three for the enquiry submission workflow. Each tool has a distinct, non-redundant job.
The wizard can be started, advanced, and fully inspected via checker_start, checker_answer, and checker_tree, covering both interactive and end-to-end use. The enquiry workflow has an explainer, field schema, and a two-step submit with consent and confirmation, leaving no obvious dead end.