Skip to main content
Glama

site

by com.409aproviders

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to 409A Providers — 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and covers it well: it discloses validation, the step-1 return values, the email link requirement before providers see the enquiry, the exact consent wording, and the consequence of proceeding. No annotation contradiction exists.

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?

Although longer than typical descriptions, every sentence carries operational weight, and the most important caveat ('NOT a purchase') is front-loaded. The step numbering keeps the two-phase contract scannable, and the consent quote is necessary verbatim text.

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 two-step mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains return values of step 1, the required user consent step, and the post-submission email-link behavior. The only omitted details (e.g., step 2 return value, error handling) are minor against this coverage.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds critical protocol semantics: answers must be keyed from enquiry_fields, consent=true is the agreement, and confirmation is the token produced in step 1 for use in step 2. This goes beyond the schema's bare property definitions.

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 Providers') and immediately adds exclusions ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). This makes it unambiguous against sibling tools like compare_options or enquiry_describe, and the two-step nature is stated clearly.

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?

It gives a complete step-by-step protocol: call with answers and consent first, show the summary and consent line, then call again with the confirmation token only if the person agrees. It also states when not to use it ('NOT a purchase') and references enquiry_fields for answer keys, giving the agent enough routing information.

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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

The compare_* tools are distinct: criteria, options, and the full table are clearly separated. The enquiry_* tools are also distinct, though compare_options and compare_table could initially be confused before reading their descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

The compare_* tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern, but the enquiry tools mix conventions: enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields are noun-first while submit_enquiry is verb-first. This is readable but not fully consistent.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools form a tight, well-scoped set for this server's purpose: three for browsing comparison data and three for the enquiry flow. No tool feels redundant or excessive.

Completeness5/5

The tools cover the full journey: understanding criteria, comparing options, viewing the full table, and submitting an enquiry with proper consent and confirmation. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated purpose.

Resources