enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Term Dates API 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 available, the description carries the disclosure burden. It makes clear this is a metadata/read operation returning field definitions, and it establishes that the returned keys are the contract for submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly declare read-only behavior, but the zero-parameter, descriptive nature reduces the risk of misuse.
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 tight sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and every clause adds useful information about either the return contents or the downstream usage 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 with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It enumerates the returned field attributes and explains how the result should be used, giving an agent everything needed to call the tool and interpret the response.
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?
This tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds appropriate context about how the returned data should be used, even though it says nothing about parameters.
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 identifies the tool as returning every field of the Term Dates API enquiry and enumerates the attributes included: key, label, type, required status, help text, and options. It is distinguishable from submit_enquiry, which consumes answers rather than listing fields, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'fetch'.
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 final sentence implies the intended workflow by instructing that answers to submit_enquiry should be keyed by the field key, so this tool is the lookup step before submission. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over enquiry_describe or other sibling tools, leaving usage somewhat implied.
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 compare_* tools are clearly separated into criteria, options, and the full matrix, and the enquiry_* tools split process explanation, schema, and submission. There is minor overlap potential between compare_criteria and compare_table since the table also includes criteria, but descriptions make the intended use distinguishable.
compare_criteria, compare_options, and compare_table follow a consistent verb_noun pattern, while enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields put the noun first and submit_enquiry uses verb_noun again. The mixed ordering is still readable, but the naming is not fully systematic.
Six tools is well-scoped for a server covering both a comparison view and an enquiry submission workflow. Each tool supports a distinct step without redundancy or bloat.
The comparison side covers criteria, options, and the full result table, while the enquiry side covers explanation, field discovery, and two-step submission. Minor gaps exist, such as no way to check an enquiry's status or resend the confirmation email, but they are not essential to the stated workflow.