Skip to main content
Glama

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Answering Service Quotes: 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 US answering service providers, chosen by Answering Service Quotes, 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."

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: Send my contact details to up to three US answering service providers, chosen by Answering Service Quotes, 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: By submitting you agree Answering Service Quotes shares your details with answering service providers who may contact you."New value: +"true only when the person has agreed to: Send my contact details to up to three US answering service providers, chosen by Answering Service Quotes, 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 at all, the description carries the full load and does so: it discloses that step 1 only validates, that step 2 triggers a double opt-in email the recipient must click before any provider sees the data, and that contact details go to up to three named-by-the-broker US providers who call directly. This is exactly the consequential side-effect information an agent needs before invoking.

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?

Front-loaded with the disclaimers and then ordered by step, so the reading path matches the calling path. The full consent sentence is reproduced even though it already appears verbatim in the schema's consent property, which is some redundancy, though defensible given how consequential that text is.

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 nested-object, two-phase, no-annotation tool, the description covers the flow, the return artifacts of step 1 (summary, consent line, token), and the downstream email confirmation step, so an agent knows both what it gets back and what the end user will experience. No output schema exists, and the return content is still adequately characterized.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it ties "answers" to field keys sourced from the sibling enquiry_fields tool and ties "confirmation" to the token produced in step 1, neither of which the schema states. It stops short of describing value formats or what happens if validation fails on a given field.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Submits an enquiry to Answering Service Quotes") and immediately delimits what it is not ("NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote"). That framing separates it from the sibling enquiry_fields/enquiry_describe tools, which are referenced as inputs rather than as alternatives for this action.

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 two-step protocol is spelled out with explicit conditions: step 1 with answers and consent=true, then step 2 "only if the person agrees" with the returned token. It also states the precondition (person has read the consent line) and the negative case (not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote).

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources