Skip to main content
Glama

site

by com.answeringservicecompare

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Answering Service Compare — 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 UK telephone answering 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 UK telephone answering 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

A5/5.0
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 handles it well. It discloses the two-step validation flow, the confirmation token handoff, the consent requirement, the post-submission email, and the click-before-provider-visible behavior, giving the agent a clear model of side effects and sequencing.

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?

The description is long but every sentence earns its place, covering workflow, consent text, and email behavior. It is front-loaded with the key caveat (not a purchase/quote) and structured as clear numbered steps, making it easy for an agent 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 multi-step, consent-gated submission tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what each step returns, what the agent must show the user, when to proceed, and what happens after submission. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds crucial semantics beyond the schema: answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must match the exact consent statement, and confirmation is the token returned from step 1. This turns otherwise generic parameters into a coherent workflow.

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') and clearly differentiates the tool from a purchase or guaranteed quote. It also conveys the two-step nature in the title and description, making its role distinct from the sibling comparison and enquiry-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 Guidelines5/5

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

The description gives explicit step-by-step usage conditions: call once with answers and consent to get a summary and token, then call again only after the person agrees. It also states when not to use this tool ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'), which is strong usage guidance.

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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: compare_criteria, compare_options, and compare_table cover different aspects of the comparison data, while enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields, and submit_enquiry handle the enquiry process. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: compare_* for comparison-related tools and enquiry_* for enquiry-related tools. The naming is predictable and uniform throughout.

Tool Count5/5

With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of providing comparison data and enabling enquiries. Each tool earns its place, and the count feels appropriate without being sparse or overloaded.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers the full lifecycle: users can retrieve the comparison criteria, options, and full table, then understand the enquiry process, get required fields, and submit an enquiry with consent. No obvious gaps exist for the server's stated domain.

Resources