Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

site

by com.aisandboxenvironments
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Submit an ENQUIRY to AI Sandbox Environments (two steps; not a purchase)

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to AI Sandbox Environments: 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 the AI Sandbox Environments team sees it. Consent means the person has read and agreed to: "I agree that the people who run this site read my environment details and reply to me."

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "answers": "<answers>",
      "consent": "<consent>"
    },
    "name": "submit_enquiry"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
answersYesthe person's answers, keyed by field key
consentYestrue only when the person has agreed to: I agree that the people who run this site read my environment details and reply to me.
confirmationNothe confirmation token from step 1, after the person has approved the summary

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 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 supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so: it discloses that step 1 is non-committal and what it returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token), that step 2 is the committing call, and that submission only reaches the team after the person clicks an emailed link. It also spells out what consent actually attests to, which is the highest-risk ambiguity in the call.

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 disclaimers are front-loaded before any mechanics, and the step-1/step-2 structure is easy to follow. It is a dense single paragraph, and the consent sentence is quoted verbatim even though the schema already carries the identical text, which is minor redundancy rather than padding.

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-phase, consent-gated write tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is as complete as needed: it covers phase semantics, return contents, the human approval gate, the email verification step, and the meaning of consent. An agent could execute the full flow correctly from this description alone.

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 real meaning: answers are keyed by field key sourced from enquiry_fields, and confirmation is the token issued by step 1 after human approval — establishing the cross-call dependency the schema alone does not convey. The consent wording is duplicated rather than extended, which keeps this just below a 5.

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 and resource ('Submits an enquiry to AI Sandbox Environments') and immediately negates the two most likely misreadings ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It also ties itself to the sibling tool enquiry_fields by naming where the field keys come from, so an agent can place it in the workflow without opening another 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 a gating condition: step 1 validates and returns a summary, and step 2 is called 'only if the person agrees'. It also states the human-in-the-loop obligation ('show the person the summary and the consent line'), which is exactly the when-to-call guidance an agent needs for a consent-bearing tool.

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