Skip to main content
Glama

site

by com.accountingfirmvalue

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Accounting Firm Value — 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 business valuation firms, 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 business valuation firms, 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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it explains the two-step validation and confirmation flow, the consent requirement, email delivery, and the condition that the provider only sees the enquiry after the person clicks the link. Side effects are disclosed transparently.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is dense but every major idea earns its place: non-purchase caveat, two-step flow, consent text, confirmation token, and email-link requirement. It is formatted as a single block rather than clean numbered steps, but remains easy to follow.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is highly complete: it tells the agent what to send, when to send it, what to show the person, when to resend, what consent means, and what happens after submission. The reference to enquiry_fields also routes the agent to the correct source for answer keys.

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 workflow meaning: answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent is tied to the exact consent line, and confirmation is the token returned from step 1. It does not restate schema types but does clarify parameter roles across the two calls.

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 states a specific action ('Submits an enquiry'), a target (Accounting Firm Value), and explicitly differentiates it from a purchase and a guaranteed quote. It also clearly separates this submission tool from sibling comparison and description tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear step-by-step usage instructions: first call without a confirmation token, then call again only after the person agrees. It notes the tool is not for purchases, but it does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives or state when not to use them.

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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

The three compare_* tools cleanly separate criteria, options, and the full table, while the enquiry_* tools distinguish describing the process, listing fields, and submitting. There is no meaningful functional overlap between any two tools.

Naming Consistency4/5

compare_criteria, compare_options, and compare_table follow a consistent verb_noun pattern, and enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields share an enquiry_ prefix. submit_enquiry breaks that prefix pattern slightly, but the names remain clear and predictable overall.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools cover two well-defined workflows without redundancy: comparison of report types and submission of an enquiry. Each tool has a distinct, necessary role.

Completeness5/5

The comparison tools provide the criteria schema, available options, and full value matrix, covering the comparison workflow end-to-end. The enquiry tools explain the process, provide the field schema, and support the two-step consent/confirmation submission, leaving no obvious dead ends.

Resources