Skip to main content
Glama

site

by com.409acost

Submit an ENQUIRY to human providers (two steps; not a purchase)

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to 409A Cost — NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote. Step 1: call with the answers (keyed by field key from enquiry_fields) and consent=true; it validates and returns a summary, the consent line and a confirmation token — show the person the summary and the consent line. Step 2: only if the person agrees, call again with the same answers, consent=true and the confirmation token; the enquiry is then submitted, and the person receives an email with a link they must click before any provider sees it. Consent means the person has read and agreed to: "Happy for my details to go to relevant 409A valuation providers, who'll contact me directly."

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
answersYesthe person's answers, keyed by field key
consentYestrue only when the person has agreed to: Happy for my details to go to relevant 409A valuation providers, who'll contact me directly.
confirmationNothe confirmation token from step 1, after the person has approved the summary

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does so thoroughly. It discloses validation, the Step 1 summary/consent line/token, the email side effect, and the critical condition that no provider sees anything until the person clicks the emailed link. It even includes the exact consent wording.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the key 'not a purchase' warning and then organized into Step 1 and Step 2. It is dense but every sentence carries necessary behavioral, sequencing, or consent-related information, with no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a multi-step mutation with side effects and no output schema, the description covers the full lifecycle: prerequisites, call arguments, intermediate return values, consent handling, email delivery, and the gating link click. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, including the consent wording and the confirmation token origin. The description adds useful cross-parameter context: answers come from enquiry_fields, the second call must reuse the same answers, and the token must come from an approved Step 1 summary. However, the schema still handles most of the parameter-level documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Submits an enquiry to 409A Cost', and immediately disambiguates it from related actions with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. It also spells out the two-step nature, so an agent can distinguish submit_enquiry from siblings like calculate or enquiry_fields.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit step-by-step invocation rules: Step 1 with answers and consent to obtain a token, then Step 2 only if the person agrees and only with the same answers plus the confirmation token. It also states when not to use the tool ('not a purchase') and references enquiry_fields for the answer keys.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All site toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a clearly separate concern: calculate runs the calculator, calculator_describe documents it, and the three enquiry tools split process overview, field schema, and submission. There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between them.

Naming Consistency3/5

The names are readable but mix conventions: 'submit_enquiry' is verb-noun, 'calculate' is a bare verb, 'calculator_describe' and 'enquiry_describe' invert the verb-noun pattern, and 'enquiry_fields' is noun-noun. The shared 'describe' suffix gives some structure, so it is not chaotic.

Tool Count5/5

Five tools is well-scoped for a server with two related functions: a 409A calculator and an enquiry submission flow. Each tool has a distinct job and none feel redundant or missing.

Completeness5/5

The calculator has both a run tool and a describe tool for inputs/outputs; the enquiry flow has a behavioral overview, a field listing, and a two-step submission process. For the stated purpose, the surface is complete with no obvious dead ends.

Resources