enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Temperature Log 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 does disclose the exact kind of data returned and the expected downstream usage, which is helpful. However, it never explicitly states that this is a read-only retrieval operation, nor does it mention potential errors or limitations, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.
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 a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose, then lists the contained data attributes, and ends with a practical usage pointer. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
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 no-input, no-output-schema metadata tool, the description is complete. It explains what data the tool returns, enumerates the fields, and clearly connects it to submit_enquiry, which is the main action an agent would need to take with that data.
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 full schema description coverage, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to add. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the output and how it should be used rather than inventing parameter guidance.
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 that the tool exposes every field of the Temperature Log enquiry, including key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. The purpose is specific and the resource is named, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling enquiry_describe tool.
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 gives actionable usage context: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key.' This tells the agent why the tool matters and how the returned field keys should be used. It does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives, but the usage direction is clear.
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 maps to a distinct function: the checker tools handle starting, stepping through, and viewing the full decision tree, while the enquiry tools handle explaining the process, listing fields, and submitting with consent. There is no meaningful overlap between any two tools.
The checker_ and enquiry_ prefixes provide some grouping, but the verb/noun ordering is inconsistent: checker_start and submit_enquiry are verb-first while enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields are noun-first. The names are readable but do not follow one clear convention.
Six tools is well-scoped for the two workflows present: a decision guide and an enquiry submission flow. Each tool earns its place and there are no redundant or superfluous tools.
The checker workflow covers starting, stepping through, and reasoning end-to-end, while the enquiry workflow covers explanation, field schema, and two-step consent-based submission. The surface supports the full intended user journey without obvious dead ends.