Skip to main content
Glama

site

by com.brokervsadvisor

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Broker vs Advisor — 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 business brokers and M&A advisers, 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 business brokers and M&A advisers, 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

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly explains the two-step statefulness, validation, consent requirement, email delivery, and the fact that providers only see the enquiry after the person clicks the link. It also reveals the privacy implication: details are shared with brokers and advisers.

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 densely informative, with clear Step 1/Step 2 structure. Every sentence adds essential workflow detail, and the critical 'not a purchase' warning is front-loaded. No redundant filler.

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?

The tool has meaningful complexity — two-step flow, consent, confirmation token, email verification, and provider visibility. The description covers all of these, plus what step 1 returns, what to show the person, and what happens after step 2. No output schema exists, so this textual coverage is essential and sufficient.

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 already 100%, and the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, the consent parameter requires the exact quoted agreement, and confirmation must be the token from step 1. It also clarifies that step 2 must reuse the same answers, which is not in the schema.

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 clearly states the action ('Submits an enquiry'), the target ('to Broker vs Advisor'), and what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It distinguishes itself semantically from purchase or quote tools despite the sibling tools being mostly unrelated checkers.

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 description provides explicit step-by-step usage instructions: step 1 validates and returns a token, step 2 is only called after the person agrees. It also states the condition for each call and warns against using it as a purchase or guaranteed quote, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

The two prefixes (checker_ and enquiry_) cleanly separate the decision guide from the enquiry flow. Within each group, start/answer/tree and describe/fields/submit have distinct roles, and the descriptions make overlap unlikely.

Naming Consistency4/5

All names are lowercase snake_case and grouped by prefix, which provides strong consistency. The post-prefix words mix nouns and verbs (start, tree, describe, submit_enquiry), so it is not a uniform verb_noun pattern.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is appropriate for this narrow scope: three for the decision guide lifecycle and three for the enquiry submission flow. No tool feels redundant or missing at a high level.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers the complete user journey: learn about the guide, step through it or inspect the full tree, understand the enquiry, fetch its fields, and submit with consent/confirmation. No obvious dead-end or missing operation is apparent.

Resources