Skip to main content
Glama

site

by com.bizworthcalculator

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Business Worth 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 relevant corporate finance adviser, 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 relevant corporate finance adviser, 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 provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the two-step validation flow, the consent requirement with exact wording, the email notification, and the mandatory link click before providers see the enquiry. This is exceptional transparency.

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 is necessary for a two-step consent-gated submission tool. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and non-purchase warning, then logically walks through step 1 and step 2. No redundant fluff.

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, lack of annotations, and lack of output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers both calls, the confirmation token, consent text, what to show the user, and post-submission email behavior. An agent has enough information to use the 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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema. It explains that answers are keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields, that consent requires the exact agreement text, and that confirmation is the token returned from step 1. This workflow-level explanation makes parameter semantics much clearer.

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 and resource: 'Submits an enquiry to Business Worth Calculator'. It clearly distinguishes the tool from a purchase or guaranteed quote, and the title emphasizes the two-step nature. This makes it immediately distinct from siblings 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?

The description gives clear step-by-step usage instructions: first call to validate and get a confirmation token, then a second call only if the person agrees. It also states when not to use it ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools for other purposes, so it stops short of full exclusion 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 maps cleanly to a distinct concern: running the valuation, describing calculator inputs/outputs, describing the enquiry process, listing enquiry fields, and submitting the enquiry. No two tools appear to do the same thing, and the describe tools are clearly separated by subject.

Naming Consistency3/5

The metadata tools follow a similar 'resource_describe'/'resource_fields' pattern, but the action tools are inconsistent: 'calculate' is a bare verb while 'submit_enquiry' is verb_noun, and the describe tools are noun_verb rather than verb_noun. The names are still readable, but the conventions are mixed.

Tool Count5/5

Five tools is appropriate for this narrow domain: two calculator-related, three enquiry-related, with no redundant or filler tools. It sits comfortably in a well-scoped range.

Completeness5/5

The surface covers the full workflow an agent needs: understanding the calculator, running it, understanding the enquiry, obtaining its fields, and submitting it with the required consent and confirmation. No obvious dead ends or missing lifecycle operations.

Resources