enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Self Build Insurance Compare 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 explaining behavior. It discloses exactly what data the tool exposes and how the result should be consumed. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or side-effect-free, but the metadata-oriented wording and the reference to submit_enquiry make that reasonably clear.
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 with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and enumerates the field attributes; the second sentence explains how to use the result with submit_enquiry. Every word earns its place.
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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it states what fields are returned, the attributes of each field, and how to map them into submit_enquiry. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool and use its output 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 zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter information to add. The description does not reference any inputs, which is appropriate given the empty input schema; the baseline for zero parameters is 4.
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 Self Build Insurance Compare enquiry—and enumerates the attributes returned (key, label, type, required, help text, options). It lacks an explicit operational verb such as 'returns' or 'lists', but the title and content make the purpose unambiguous and distinguishable from sibling tools.
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 clear context: this tool exposes enquiry fields, and its output should be used to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. It does not explicitly contrast with compare_criteria, compare_options, or compare_table, but the integration with submit_enquiry gives the agent a direct usage clue.
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 purpose: compare_criteria, compare_options, and compare_table cover different aspects of the comparison data, while enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields, and submit_enquiry form a clear enquiry submission flow. There is no meaningful overlap between any of the tools.
The compare_* tools follow a consistent prefix pattern, but the enquiry tools mix conventions: enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields are noun-first while submit_enquiry is verb-first. The names are still readable and predictable enough, but the pattern is not uniform.
Six tools is well-scoped for a comparison and enquiry server. Each tool earns its place and there is no obvious redundancy or missing trivial utility.
The tool set covers the full workflow: viewing comparison criteria, options, and the full table, plus describing, inspecting, and submitting an enquiry. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated domain.