Ada Diamonds

Request a jeweler consultation

request_consultation

Submit a consultation request on the customer's behalf. Requires the appointments:write scope, which the customer grants through Ada's OAuth authorization flow — this tool cannot be used without their explicit approval.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	Customer's name
`email`	Yes	Customer's email address; the jeweler replies here
`phone`	No	Customer's phone number, if they want a call
`topic`	No	What the consultation is about
`message`	No	What the customer is looking for, in their words
`budget_usd`	No	Approximate budget in US dollars
`product_url`	No	URL of a specific diamond, setting, or piece they are interested in

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`email`	Yes	The customer email the request was filed under
`status`	Yes	received when a request was recorded; otherwise why it was not
`message`	Yes	Human-readable outcome, including what to do next
`sandbox`	Yes	True when a sandbox credential was used: nothing was created and nobody was contacted
`reference`	Yes	Request reference, when received

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only mark readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, leaving the mutation nature implicit. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating the OAuth requirement and explicitly warning that the tool cannot be used without customer approval. It does not contradict any annotation.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states the action and beneficiary, the second adds the critical authorization constraint. Every word earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 7-parameter write tool with a output schema and 100% parameter documentation, the description covers the essential non-schema aspects: purpose, beneficiary, and auth prerequisites. It doesn't describe post-submission behavior, but the output schema and annotations cover enough to make successful invocation likely.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate per the rubric.

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 uses a specific verb ('Submit') and resource ('consultation request') and clarifies the actor ('on the customer's behalf'). It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools, which are all read/search/info operations rather than appointment or request actions.

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 context: this tool is for submitting consultation requests for a customer, and it states a hard precondition (appointments:write scope with explicit customer approval). It does not name alternatives, but the sibling tools are all non-write tools, so the usage context is unambiguous.

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

All Ada Diamonds tools Inspect

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

A4.3/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each search tool targets a distinct inventory category (loose diamonds, engagement ring settings, fine jewelry, knowledge base), and the non-search tools handle distinct actions, no two tools appear to do the same job. Potential overlap between engagement rings and jewelry is resolved by clear setting vs. finished-jewelry descriptions.

Naming Consistency5/5

All eig tools follow a snake_case nouns pattern, with search_* used consistently for lookups and get_/read_request_create_ for other operations. Naming is predictable and uniform.

Tool Count5/5

Eight tools is well-scoped for ecommmerce/knowledge server: three product searche, knowledge-base search plus read, company info, consultation booking, checkout. Every tool ear its place and adds no unnecessary surface area.

Completeness5/5

The set covers the full customer journey: browsing diamonds setting, jewelry, reading guides, getting busines details, requesting consultation, and completing purchase via checkout. Potential gap like order tracking are outside the apparent scope.

Resources

Need Help?