enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Tacho Calibration 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 behavioral burden. It clearly discloses what the tool provides and how the output relates to a subsequent submission. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or side-effect free, but the described behavior of returning field metadata strongly implies a safe query.
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 concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core content and the second immediately connects the result to the sibling tool submit_enquiry. Every sentence 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 zero-parameter metadata tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it enumerates the fields returned, explains the allowed options, and tells the agent how to use the result. Nothing else is needed to call or understand this tool 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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed because the tool takes no arguments. The mention that answers should be keyed by field key indirectly explains how the output parameters of this tool feed another tool.
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 specific resource (the Tacho Calibration enquiry) and enumerates the returned content: key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'return', but the meaning is unambiguous and the title reinforces it. It is clearly distinct from submit_enquiry, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from enquiry_describe.
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: the fields are meant to be used as keys when passing answers to submit_enquiry. This tells an agent when to call this tool relative to a sibling. It does not state exclusions or when to prefer enquiry_describe, but the usage hint is sufficient for common cases.
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.
enquiry_describe explains the process, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the two-step submission. Each tool has a distinct purpose with no functional overlap.
Two tools use an enquiry_ prefix with a descriptor (describe, fields), while submit_enquiry reverses the order into verb_noun. The names are still readable and all reference 'enquiry', but the convention is mixed.
Three tools cover exactly what is needed for a single enquiry workflow: overview, schema, and submission. Each tool earns its place without redundancy.
The workflow is fully covered: an agent can describe the process, retrieve the required fields, and submit with consent and token confirmation. There are no obvious missing operations for the stated purpose.