enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Transport Statement Cost 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 provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It usefully discloses the content of the response, but it does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it has side effects, or what the overall return shape looks like. For a simple field-listing tool this is adequate but not richly 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?
Two tight sentences: the first lists exactly what the tool returns, and the second points to the downstream submission workflow. No filler or repetition of the tool name or title.
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-parameter metadata tool, the description is nearly complete: it enumerates the field attributes and connects the output to submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly describe the result as a list or collection, but 'Every field' sufficiently implies the response shape.
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, so there is no parameter gap for the description to fill. The description adds relevant adjacent context by explaining that returned field keys are used for submit_enquiry, which is helpful even though it is not about parameter semantics for this 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 clearly identifies the resource (every field of the Transport Statement Cost enquiry) and the attributes returned: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It is specific and distinct from submit_enquiry, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling 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 sentence 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' implies a concrete workflow: retrieve field keys here, then use them when submitting. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over enquiry_describe or mention any exclusions.
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 targets a distinct aspect of the enquiry flow: describe explains the process, fields provides the schema, and submit performs the actual two-step submission. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Naming is mixed: two tools use an 'enquiry_' prefix with the verb at the end ('enquiry_describe') or no verb ('enquiry_fields'), while the third uses a verb-first pattern ('submit_enquiry'). The names are readable and share a common root, but the verb placement is inconsistent.
Three tools is perfectly scoped for a single, narrow enquiry submission workflow. Each tool serves a necessary step without redundancy or unnecessary expansion.
The tool set covers the full enquiry lifecycle: learning about the process, getting field definitions, and submitting with the required two-step confirmation. No obvious operations are missing for the stated purpose.