enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Tree Survey 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 and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what the tool returns. It does so by enumerating the field attributes: key, label, type, required, help text, and options. It also indicates the relationship to submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly confirm the operation is read-only or describe formatting, but the metadata nature is clear.
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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads what the tool returns, and the second sentence provides the essential integration detail. Every word 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 no-parameter metadata tool, the description is quite complete: it names the domain, lists the returned attributes, and connects to the sibling submit_enquiry tool. It could be slightly stronger by contrasting with enquiry_describe or stating the response format, but nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it 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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides full coverage and the baseline is 4. The description adds useful context by explaining that field keys are the link to submit_enquiry answers, which helps the agent understand how the output should be used.
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 what the tool provides: every field of the Tree Survey Cost enquiry, including key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'return,' and it does not distinguish itself from enquiry_describe, but the overall purpose is clear and specific.
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 guidance: pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. This tells the agent why it would call this tool first and how to use the returned data. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or how it differs from enquiry_describe, so it stops short of a full 5.
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 three tools are largely distinct: enquiry_describe explains the process, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the submission. There is minor potential confusion between describe and fields since both are preliminary 'read' steps, but the descriptions clarify their different purposes.
All tools follow a consistent 'enquiry_<verb>' pattern: describe, fields, and submit. The naming clearly groups them under a single domain and makes the action of each tool immediately recognizable.
Three tools is well-scoped for a simple enquiry submission workflow. Each tool covers a distinct stage—orientation, schema discovery, and submission—without unnecessary bloat or missing essentials.
The tool set covers the full enquiry lifecycle: understanding the process, retrieving field definitions, and submitting with confirmation. A minor gap is the lack of an explicit status-check or cancellation tool, but for this narrow domain the surface is functionally complete.