Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

site

by com.backgroundcheckquotes
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Submit an ENQUIRY to Background Check Quotes (two steps; not a purchase)

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Background Check 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 the Background Check Quotes team sees it. Consent means the person has read and agreed to: "By sending this you agree the Background Check Quotes team reads your enquiry and replies by email. We do not pass it to anyone else."

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: By sending this you agree the Background Check Quotes team reads your enquiry and replies by email. We do not pass it to anyone else.
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 Background Check Quotes shares your details with background screening providers who may contact you."New value: +"true only when the person has agreed to: By sending this you agree the Background Check Quotes team reads your enquiry and replies by email. We do not pass it to anyone else."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does: it discloses that step 1 only validates and returns a summary, consent line and token, that step 2 submits, and that an email double-opt-in click is required before the vendor team sees the enquiry. This is meaningful behavioral context no structured field encodes.

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 core action and the two negations, then ordered by step, which matches how an agent must execute it. The consent wording is quoted verbatim and is long, but it is load-bearing since it must be shown to the person; a minor redundancy is restating "consent=true" in both steps.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema is the hardest case, yet the description covers sequencing, state carried between calls, what each call returns, and the post-submission email confirmation. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly or to avoid a premature submission is missing.

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% and the schema documents all three parameters, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by explaining the relationship between them — the same answers are reused across both calls and `confirmation` is specifically "the confirmation token from step 1." The only gap is it doesn't describe expected key names inside `answers` beyond pointing at `enquiry_fields`.

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 Background Check Quotes") and immediately disambiguates what it is not ("NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote"). The two-step flow is named with the sibling tool `enquiry_fields` referenced as the source of field keys, so an agent can place this tool precisely among its siblings.

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?

Explicit when-to-call for both steps: step 1 with answers and consent=true, step 2 only after the person agrees, with the confirmation token. It names the alternative data source (`enquiry_fields`) and gives the gating condition ("only if the person agrees") rather than leaving sequencing to inference.

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