enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the SAR Builder 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 full burden. It discloses the returned content well and indirectly suggests this is a read-only listing tool, but it does not explicitly state behavioral aspects such as whether this tool submits anything, whether it requires authentication, or how the fields are ordered/grouped. The workflow hint ('pass answers to submit_enquiry') implies no side effects but does not state them.
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 wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the key content of the response, and the second sentence adds actionable context about how to use the field keys. It is efficient and well-structured.
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 simple no-parameter listing tool, the description is largely complete: it enumerates the fields returned and connects them to the submit workflow. There is no output schema, so the prose serves that role reasonably well, though it does not clarify the exact return format or distinguish this tool from enquiry_describe.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters for the description to explain. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the return content 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 tool's resource (every field of the SAR Builder enquiry) and enumerates the specific data it exposes: key, label, type, required, help text, and allowed options. The verb is implied rather than explicit, and the description does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling enquiry_describe, but the content specification is clear enough.
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 a clear practical workflow hint: pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, which implies this tool is for retrieving field definitions before submitting answers. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like enquiry_describe, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions.
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: checker_start/answer/tree cover the decision guide's entry, traversal, and full model, while enquiry_describe/fields/submit_enquiry cover documentation, schema, and submission. No two tools appear to do the same thing.
Most tools follow a domain-prefixed pattern (checker_*, enquiry_*), which makes grouping obvious. submit_enquiry breaks the pattern by leading with the verb instead of the domain, but the naming remains understandable and mostly consistent.
Six tools is a compact, well-scoped set for a two-part workflow: the decision guide and the enquiry submission flow. Each tool has a clear purpose and none feels redundant.
The decision guide is fully covered with start, step-wise answer, and full tree access, and the enquiry flow documents the process, fields, and two-step submission. A status-check or retrieval tool for submitted enquiries would be a minor gap, but the core workflow has no dead ends.