Skip to main content
Glama

site

by com.answeringservicepicker

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Answering Service Picker — 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 US answering service 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 US answering service 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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, description carries the full burden and delivers: two-step validation, consent text, email link requirement before provider visibility, and confirmation token flow. It clearly labels the operation as non-purchase and non-quote, and discloses side effect of email.

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 longer than average but every sentence carries needed step or caveat, and the core action is front-loaded. The structured 'Step 1 / Step 2' format makes it 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 no-annotation, no-output-schema, two-step mutation tool, it covers all critical guidance: what to show the person, when to proceed, what the token is for, and the post-submission email link. An agent can execute correctly without external info.

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 already describes each property with 100% coverage; description adds cross-parameter workflow by tying answers to enquiry_fields keys, consent to explicit text, and confirmation to the step-1 token. This sequence context goes beyond individual schema definitions.

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?

Specific verb 'Submits an enquiry' plus resource 'Answering Service Picker', explicitly distinguished from purchase and quote. The two-step nature is in the title and description, making it unmistakable among siblings that are comparison/fields 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 gives explicit step-by-step usage: call with answers and consent, show the summary and consent line, then call again only if the person agrees with the confirmation token. It excludes purchases and quotes, but doesn't name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use this vs enquiry_fields/compare tools.

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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

The tools split into two clear groups: comparison tools (criteria, options, table) and enquiry tools (describe, fields, submit). The compare_* tools all serve the same comparison domain but each has a distinct output type, so an agent can pick correctly with careful reading.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tool names follow a clear snake_case pattern with a domain prefix: compare_criteria, compare_options, compare_table, enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields. The one deviation is submit_enquiry, which is verb-first rather than enquiry-prefixed, but the inconsistency is minor and the names remain predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is well-scoped for this server: three support exploring the comparison data and three support the enquiry submission workflow. Each tool has a clear role without unnecessary bloat or missing essentials.

Completeness5/5

The comparison side fully covers criteria, options, and the full data table, while the enquiry side covers explanation, field schema, and the two-step submission flow. There are no obvious dead ends: an agent can introduce the service, compare options, and complete an enquiry from start to finish.

Resources