enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Leave Tracker 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the content returned and implies a read-only listing, but it does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects or that it only returns static field definitions. This is adequate but not fully explicit.
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 pack all essential information: what is returned and how to use it. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail. The most useful information is front-loaded.
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, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete. It enumerates the output fields and gives explicit downstream usage instructions. An agent knows exactly what to expect and how to act on it without needing more context.
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 and 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details because there are none, but it does explain how the output should be used to construct parameter keys for 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 states what the tool provides: every field of the Leave Tracker enquiry with its key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. The title 'The questions the enquiry asks' reinforces the resource, and the phrase 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' differentiates it from the submit_enquiry sibling.
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?
It gives explicit workflow guidance: after retrieving fields, pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. This tells the agent how to use the output in relation to a specific sibling. It does not mention when to use it versus enquiry_describe or calculate, but the primary alternative is addressed.
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 targets a distinct aspect: running the calculator, describing calculator inputs/outputs, explaining the enquiry flow, listing enquiry fields, and submitting an enquiry. The only mild ambiguity is between the two '_describe' tools, but their descriptions clearly separate calculator metadata from enquiry process/schema.
The names are readable and consistently lowercase snake_case, but they mix conventions: 'calculate' and 'submit_enquiry' put the action first, while 'calculator_describe' and 'enquiry_describe' put the noun first with a verb suffix, and 'enquiry_fields' has no verb. A consistent verb_noun pattern would improve predictability.
Five tools is well-scoped for this server's two related purposes: the leave calculator and the enquiry submission flow. Each tool earns its place, including the metadata and instruction tools that prevent misuse.
The tool surface fully covers the apparent domain: calculate provides the calculation, calculator_describe explains its contract, and enquiry_fields/enquiry_describe/submit_enquiry cover the two-step consent and submission lifecycle. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations.