enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Shift Pattern Generator 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 must carry behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the response contents (field metadata and allowed options), but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only, side-effect-free operation or describe any error/auth behavior. This is adequate but not rich.
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, no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core content and the second gives a practical usage hint. Both sentences earn their 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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema introspection tool, this is complete: it enumerates the returned field metadata and connects the tool to the next step, submit_enquiry. An agent knows what to expect and how to use the result.
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, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description adds useful context about how the returned field keys should be used in submit_enquiry, but there are no parameters whose meaning needs elaboration.
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 identifies the resource (Shift Pattern Generator enquiry fields) and specifies exactly what is included: key, label, type, required, help text, and allowed options. It lacks an explicit action verb like 'list' or 'return', so it falls short of perfect, but the scope is unmistakable and the link to submit_enquiry helps disambiguate it from siblings.
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?
It gives clear context by telling the agent to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, effectively showing when this tool is needed: before submitting. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives such as enquiry_describe or state when not to use it, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.
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.
The calculator and enquiry tool groups are cleanly separated, and each tool has a distinct role: running versus describing the calculator, and describing, field-listing, or submitting an enquiry. Even the two describe tools are unambiguous because their prefixes identify which resource they document.
Naming conventions are mixed: calculate is a bare verb, calculator_describe and enquiry_describe flip the typical verb_noun order, enquiry_fields is noun_noun, and submit_enquiry is verb_noun. The names are readable, but there is no consistent verb placement or structural pattern across the set.
Five tools is well-scoped for a small site server with two purposes: performing and explaining a calculator, and supporting an enquiry submission workflow. Each tool earns its place without redundancy or excessive surface area.
The calculator side has both execution and documentation, while the enquiry side has process documentation, field schema, and the full two-step submission flow. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the apparent domain of this server.