Skip to main content
Glama

site

by com.aiimplementationcost
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to AI Implementation 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: "Send my contact details to up to three AI implementation and marketing agencies, chosen by AI Implementation Cost, who'll contact me directly. I'll be emailed each firm's name as my details go to it, and can stop any more firms getting them."

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
answersYesthe person's answers, keyed by field key
consentYestrue only when the person has agreed to: Send my contact details to up to three AI implementation and marketing agencies, chosen by AI Implementation Cost, who'll contact me directly. I'll be emailed each firm's name as my details go to it, and can stop any more firms getting them.
confirmationNothe confirmation token from step 1, after the person has approved the summary

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / consent / description
      Previous value: -"true only when the person has agreed to: Happy for my details to go to AI implementation partners, who'll contact me directly."New value: +"true only when the person has agreed to: Send my contact details to up to three AI implementation and marketing agencies, chosen by AI Implementation Cost, who'll contact me directly. I'll be emailed each firm's name as my details go to it, and can stop any more firms getting them."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
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 does so: it discloses the two-phase confirmation gate, that an email link must be clicked before any provider sees the data, that up to three agencies will contact the person directly, and the exact consent wording being agreed to. These are real consequences an agent must not misrepresent.

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 critical constraint (NOT a purchase) is front-loaded and the step sequence is ordered clearly. The verbatim consent paragraph is duplicated from the schema's consent description, which is mild redundancy, but it serves the requirement to show the person the exact wording.

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, side-effectful tool with no output schema, the description explains the step-1 return values (summary, consent line, confirmation token), the step-2 effect, and the downstream email-verification and provider-sharing flow. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds workflow meaning the schema cannot: answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must be true, and confirmation is only supplied on step 2. That mapping of parameters to phases is genuinely additive.

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?

States a specific verb (submits) and resource (an enquiry to AI Implementation Cost), and immediately scopes it as NOT a purchase and NOT a guaranteed quote, which separates it from any transactional sibling. An agent can distinguish this from calculate/enquiry_fields without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit two-step protocol with the condition that gates each step: step 1 with answers + consent=true, step 2 only if the person agrees and with the confirmation token. It also names the prerequisite data source (.enquiry_fields keys) and the sibling tools that feed it, leaving nothing to inference.

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
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources