Skip to main content
Glama

site

by com.arizonasolarcostcalculator

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Arizona Solar Cost Calculator — 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 a licensed Arizona solar installer, 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 a licensed Arizona solar installer, 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

A4.8/5.0
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 thoroughly. It discloses the stateful two-step nature, the confirmation token, the email sending, and crucially that providers only see the enquiry after the person clicks the link. This is far beyond what the schema alone reveals.

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 detailed but well-structured, with the purpose front-loaded and each step explained in sequence. Every sentence adds essential information: the two-step protocol, the consent requirement, and the email/click behavior. Nothing feels redundant or off-topic.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (stateful two-step workflow, nested answers, no output schema), the description is complete: it defines step 1 outputs, step 2 prerequisites, the side effect (email with click link), and the exact consent phrasing. An agent has everything needed to invoke this tool correctly.

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 still adds meaning: answers must be keyed by enquiry_fields field keys, consent=true means agreement to the exact quoted line, and confirmation is the token from step 1. It clarifies the relationship between the parameters and the two-step flow that the schema alone does not convey.

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 action ('Submits an enquiry') on a specific resource (Arizona Solar Cost Calculator) and explicitly distinguishes it from a purchase or guaranteed quote. The 'human providers' scope in the title further clarifies what this tool is for, making it distinct from sibling tools like calculate or enquiry_describe.

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?

Provides an explicit two-step usage workflow with clear sequencing: call once for validation/confirmation, then call again only after the person agrees. It also tells the agent what NOT to do ('NOT a purchase') and when consent is required, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state 'use enquiry_fields to get keys'.

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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct role: calculate runs the calculator, calculator_describe explains it, enquiry_describe explains the enquiry flow, enquiry_fields lists the field schema, and submit_enquiry performs the actual submission. There is no meaningful overlap or risk of selecting the wrong tool for a task.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names follow readable lowercase snake_case but mix conventions: calculate is a bare verb, submit_enquiry is verb_noun, calculator_describe and enquiry_describe are noun_verb, and enquiry_fields is noun_noun. The pattern is inconsistent but still understandable and not chaotic.

Tool Count5/5

Five tools is a well-scoped size for this domain. Each tool covers a necessary aspect of the calculator and enquiry flow without redundancy or bloat.

Completeness5/5

The tool set fully covers the calculator workflow: run the calculation, understand its inputs and assumptions, learn the enquiry process, get the fields, and submit with the required two-step confirmation. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the apparent purpose.

Resources