enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the What Can I Drive 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 full behavioral disclosure burden. It does well by specifying the exact kinds of information returned (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options) and implies this is a read-only introspection tool by directing submission to submit_enquiry. It could be more explicit about the return shape or side-effect-free nature, but the behavior is largely 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 tight sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core content about what fields include, then adds a single practical usage note.
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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it tells the agent exactly what information the tool provides and how to use that information with submit_enquiry. Nothing essential is missing for selecting and invoking 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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics because none are needed, and its guidance about keying answers for submit_enquiry refers to a sibling tool rather than this one.
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 What Can I Drive enquiry') and enumerates what is included, so an agent understands the tool returns field metadata rather than performing an action. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'lists' or 'returns', and it does not distinguish 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 description gives practical context by instructing the agent to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, which clarifies when this tool's output is needed. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives such as enquiry_describe, but the intended usage is clear.
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 tool set cleanly separates two distinct workflows: the checker tools for navigating a decision guide and the enquiry tools for submitting a form. Within each group, every tool has a clearly different role—start, answer, tree, describe, fields, submit—so an agent is unlikely to confuse them.
Most tools follow a resource-prefix pattern such as checker_start, checker_answer, checker_tree, enquiry_describe, and enquiry_fields. The exception is submit_enquiry, which uses verb_noun form instead of the enquiry_ prefix, and checker_start/answer/tree mix verb and noun suffixes, creating a minor inconsistency.
Six tools is well-scoped for a site with two distinct user-facing features. Each tool serves a necessary step in its workflow, and there are no redundant utilities or excessive entries.
The checker workflow is fully covered: start, per-step answers, and full tree access for validation. The enquiry workflow is also complete with explanation, field schema, and a two-step submission flow that includes consent and confirmation handling.