enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Towing Capacity 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, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the data content of the tool (keys, labels, types, etc.) and implies a read-only lookup, but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or describe the response format. This is adequate but not fully transparent.
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 sentences: the first states exactly what the tool provides, and the second gives the follow-up action. It is concise, front-loaded, and every word contributes value.
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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately communicates what the agent will receive: field definitions including keys, labels, types, required flags, help text, and options. It could explicitly mention the return shape (e.g., an array or object), but the given content is sufficient for correct usage.
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 an empty input schema, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description adds value by explaining how the output keys relate to submit_enquiry, which indirectly clarifies the output schema's purpose.
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 resource as every field of the Towing Capacity Checker enquiry and enumerates the attributes included (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). It lacks an explicit verb like 'lists' or 'returns', and does not directly differentiate from siblings such as enquiry_describe, but the scope is unambiguous.
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 second sentence gives concrete usage context: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key,' which tells the agent how the output should be consumed. It does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or name alternatives, but the connection to submit_enquiry provides clear practical guidance.
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_start, checker_answer, and checker_tree tools are closely related, but their roles are clearly distinguished: start gives the first question, answer traverses the guide, and tree provides the full structure for end-to-end reasoning. The enquiry tools are also distinct, though checker_start and checker_tree could be confused by an agent looking for the initial question.
Names mostly follow a clear domain-prefix pattern: checker_* for the decision guide and enquiry_* for enquiry metadata. submit_enquiry is a minor deviation since it uses verb_noun instead of the enquiry_ prefix, but the overall naming is readable and predictable.
Six tools is well-scoped for this server's purpose: three tools cover the towing capacity decision guide and three cover the enquiry submission flow. Each tool has a clear role with no redundant extras or overwhelming surface area.
The tool set fully covers the two core workflows: navigating and reasoning through the decision guide (start, answer, tree) and submitting a consent-based enquiry (describe, fields, submit). The two-step submission with confirmation token is handled within submit_enquiry, so there are no obvious dead ends or missing operations.