enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Steel Beam 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It is explicit that the tool returns a catalog of fields and their attributes, and the language implies a read-only metadata lookup. It does not discuss authentication or side effects, but those are less relevant for a zero-parameter query tool.
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 compact sentences with no filler. The first sentence lists the returned content clearly; the second sentence explains how the result should be used with submit_enquiry.
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 metadata lookup, the description covers what the tool returns and how it relates to submission. It could more explicitly state that it is the pre-submission source of field keys, but no critical information is missing.
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 has no properties, so there is nothing for the description to clarify about arguments. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies here.
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 states the tool exposes every field of the Steel Beam Checker enquiry and enumerates the metadata included: key, label, type, required, help text, and options. It also connects the result to submit_enquiry, which helps differentiate it from submission. It does not explicitly contrast with enquiry_describe, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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 usage guidance is implied: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' suggests this tool should be consulted before submitting answers. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives such as enquiry_describe, checker_start, or checker_tree, and no when-not-to-use instruction.
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 checker tools split cleanly into start (entry point), answer (interactive step), and tree (full graph), while the enquiry tools cover explanation, schema, and submission. An agent can easily select based on whether it needs the first question, the next question, the whole guide, or enquiry metadata/action.
Names are all lowercase snake_case and mostly use a domain-prefixed pattern: checker_start, checker_answer, checker_tree, enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields. submit_enquiry breaks the order by putting the verb first, and a couple of names are resources rather than actions, so it is not perfectly uniform.
With six tools covering the two distinct workflows (decision guide and enquiry submission), the surface is compact and focused. Each tool has a clear role, and none feel redundant or missing.
The decision guide is fully navigable via start/answer, with the full tree available for end-to-end reasoning. The enquiry flow covers explainer, field schema, validation, consent, confirmation token, and final submission, leaving no obvious dead ends.