enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Smoke Control Checker 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states what the tool returns—key, label, type, required, help text, and allowed options—and says 'every field,' indicating exhaustiveness. It omits explicit statements about side effects or return format, but for a zero-parameter read-only field listing, these are minor gaps.
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 concise sentences: the first enumerates what the tool exposes, and the second gives cross-tool guidance. There is no redundancy or filler; every word contributes to understanding.
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 zero-parameter tool, the description covers the content of the response and the purpose of the returned keys, making it essentially complete. It does not specify the exact return shape (array vs object), but given the absence of parameters, output schema, and nested structures, that omission is acceptable.
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 input schema is empty, so there are no parameters to document; the baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description adds meaningful context by explaining how the returned field keys relate to calling submit_enquiry, which aids correct usage of both tools.
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 ('every field of the Smoke Control Checker enquiry') and enumerates the details it exposes (key, label, type, required, help text, options), making its purpose evident. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'list' but is unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by explaining that answers go there keyed by these field keys.
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 offers a practical usage clue ('Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key'), implying this tool supplies the keys needed for submission. However, it never explicitly states when to choose this tool over the siblings enquiry_describe or checker_tree, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is useful but indirect.
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 tool set separates cleanly into a decision-guide workflow (checker_start, checker_answer) and an enquiry workflow (enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields, submit_enquiry). Each tool has a single clear job, and the descriptions resolve any possible confusion between explaining the enquiry and providing its field schema.
All names are lowercase snake_case and use domain prefixes such as checker_ and enquiry_, which keeps them readable. The action style is inconsistent, though: checker_start and enquiry_describe put the verb last, submit_enquiry puts it first, and enquiry_fields is a noun phrase rather than an action.
The set is well-scoped for its stated purpose: two tools cover the checker decision tree and three cover the enquiry submission flow. Each tool earns its place, and the count is comfortably within the ideal range.
The checker workflow is covered end to end from the first question through to a final verdict, and the enquiry workflow is covered from explanation and field discovery through the two-step consent-based submission. There are no obvious missing operations that would leave an agent in a dead end.