Skip to main content
Glama

site

by com.brokervsadvisor
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

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: "Send my contact details to up to three business brokers and M&A advisers, chosen by Broker vs Advisor, 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."

Input Schema

TableJSON 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 business brokers and M&A advisers, chosen by Broker vs Advisor, 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: Happy for my details to go to business brokers and M&A advisers, who'll contact me directly."New value: +"true only when the person has agreed to: Send my contact details to up to three business brokers and M&A advisers, chosen by Broker vs Advisor, 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, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses validation behavior, the returned summary/consent line/token, that submission triggers an email with a click-through link before any provider sees the data, and the exact scope of consent (up to three firms, chosen by the service, with opt-out). Nothing about the write is left opaque.

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 key negative scoping, and the step sequence is easy to follow. Slightly penalized because the full consent sentence is quoted verbatim in the description while also appearing in the schema's consent description — content duplicated rather than adding new information.

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 two-step, consent-gated submission with a nested answers object and no output schema, the description covers the full lifecycle: inputs, validation, returned artifacts, second call, and the downstream email-confirmation gate. An agent has everything needed to invoke both steps correctly.

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: answers are keyed by field key from the enquiry_fields tool, consent has a precise semantic (person has read and agreed to the quoted text), and confirmation is the step-1 token reused verbatim in step 2. It clarifies the two-phase use of the same parameter set.

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?

Specific verb (submits) plus resource (an enquiry to human providers) with an explicit negative scope: 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' This distinguishes it from the sibling enquiry_* tools, which describe/collect fields rather than submit.

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?

Gives an unambiguous when-to-call-this sequencing: step 1 with answers+consent, then step 2 only after the person approves the returned summary, passing the confirmation token. It also states the pre-condition (show summary and consent line to the person) and the alternative path (do not call step 2 if they don't agree).

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