enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Waste Carrier Check 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?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It transparently lists the field attributes returned and notes that options exist only where applicable, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only lookup or describe any edge cases, output formatting, or error behavior.
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 long, front-loads the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place. It lists the exact content of the response and immediately connects the output to the related submission tool without any filler.
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?
Given no parameters and no output schema, the description does a complete job. It explains what the tool returns, which attributes are included, that options are conditional, and how the returned field keys should be used. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke the tool 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 parameter-semantics bar is set at baseline 4. The description adds relevant context by explaining that field keys are intended to be used with submit_enquiry, which helps an agent understand the meaning of the returned keys even though there are no input parameters to document.
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 (fields of the Waste Carrier Check enquiry) and enumerates the returned attributes, so an agent understands what the tool provides. It does not use an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', and it does not contrast itself with sibling tools such as enquiry_describe, but the meaning 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 description gives clear usage context: obtain field definitions and then pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, but the usage context is strong enough to guide selection.
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 tools are mostly distinct: start initializes, answer advances the flow, and tree provides the full graph for end-to-end reasoning. The enquiry tools are clearly separated by purpose, though checker_answer and checker_tree both deal with question/option data and could be confused at first glance.
There is a consistent 'checker_' and 'enquiry_' prefix, but the second half mixes verbs and nouns: checker_start/checker_answer are actions, checker_tree/enquiry_fields are resources, and submit_enquiry is a verb-noun pair. The convention is readable but not fully uniform.
Six tools is well-scoped for a server covering two related workflows: the checker Q&A flow and the enquiry submission flow. Each tool earns its place and the set is neither thin nor bloated.
The checker flow is complete with start, step-by-step traversal, and full tree access, while the enquiry flow covers instructions, schema discovery, and a confirmation-gated submission process. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated domain.