enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Underpinning Costs 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool is an informational schema lookup and enumerates exactly what is returned. It does not explicitly state that it is read-only and side-effect-free, but the no-input, descriptive nature makes that low risk.
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 compact sentence that front-loads the resource and enumerates the output fields efficiently. The final instruction about submit_enquiry is relevant and 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 zero-parameter metadata tool, the description explains both what is returned and how the output should be used, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. The only minor gap is lack of explicit sibling differentiation, but that does not materially hurt usability here.
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 the schema coverage is effectively complete, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds useful guidance on how to use the returned field keys with submit_enquiry.
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's resource: every field of the Underpinning Costs enquiry, with key, label, type, required flag, help text, and options. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling enquiry_describe, so it falls just short of full clarity.
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 implies when to use this tool: to get field keys for passing answers to submit_enquiry. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over enquiry_describe or when not to use it, so the guidance is present but only implicit.
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 has a clearly distinct role: enquiry_describe explains the process, enquiry_fields provides the input schema, and submit_enquiry performs the submission. There is no meaningful overlap or risk of selecting the wrong tool for a given step.
The names are readable and all use lowercase snake_case, but the pattern is slightly mixed: enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields lead with the resource, while submit_enquiry leads with the action. This is a minor deviation from a fully consistent verb_noun convention.
Three tools is well-scoped for this narrow enquiry submission flow. Each tool serves a necessary purpose: reading instructions, inspecting fields, and submitting with confirmation.
The set fully covers the described workflow: orientation, schema discovery, and two-step consented submission. No obvious dead ends or missing operations exist within the intended scope.