enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Which EV Charger 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 full behavioral burden. It discloses the complete set of returned attributes and notes that options are included only where they exist. The read-only nature is implied by the content and phrasing, though not explicitly stated; this is a minor gap.
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 the exact content of the response, and the second sentence gives a clear downstream use. 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 parameterless introspection tool, the description is complete: it names the enquiry, lists all field metadata returned, and explains how to use the field keys with submit_enquiry. No output schema or annotations are present, but the description covers what an agent needs to know to call and consume this tool.
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 parameter semantics are trivially satisfied and the baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining how the output keys relate to submit_enquiry, which is more than an empty schema requires.
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 Which EV Charger enquiry' — and enumerates exactly what is exposed: key, label, type, required, help text, and options. It lacks an explicit action verb like 'retrieves' or 'lists', and it does not differentiate itself from siblings such as enquiry_describe, so it stops short of a 5.
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 provides practical usage context: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key.' This tells an agent why it would call this tool and how the result feeds another tool. It does not explicitly address when not to use it or contrast it with sibling tools, so the guidance is useful but not exhaustive.
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 and enquiry tools form two clear groups, and within each group purposes are mostly distinct. One minor overlap exists: checker_answer returns the next question for a choice while checker_tree already contains the full decision graph, so an agent could use either to reason ahead.
The checker_ and enquiry_ prefixes make tool groups easily recognizable, and overall naming is readable. It is not perfectly uniform because checker_answer and checker_tree are noun-like while checker_start and submit_enquiry are verb-like, but the pattern is still predictable.
Six tools is well-scoped for this server: three cover the interactive decision guide and three cover the enquiry submission flow. Each tool serves a necessary role, and the count feels neither thin nor bloated.
The checker workflow is fully covered with start, answer, and full tree access, and the enquiry workflow is covered with descriptions, fields, and a two-step submission process. There are no obvious missing operations for the apparent scope of the server.