Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

site

by com.buffrota
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Buffrota: 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 Buffrota team sees it. Consent means the person has read and agreed to: "By sending this you agree the Buffrota 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 Buffrota 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 Buffrota shares your details with commercial cleaning contractors who may contact you."New value: +"true only when the person has agreed to: By sending this you agree the Buffrota team reads your enquiry and replies by email. We do not pass it to anyone else."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and does most of it: it discloses that step 1 only validates and returns a summary, consent line and token, while step 2 commits the submission and triggers a verification email the person must click before the team sees it. It leaves minor gaps such as token lifetime, failure/validation-error behavior, and whether step 1 persists anything.

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?

Front-loaded with the most decision-relevant fact (not a purchase, not a quote), then organized as Step 1 / Step 2 in execution order. The repeated verbatim consent sentence is the only redundancy, and it is arguably necessary since the agent must show that exact text to the person.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a nested-parameter, side-effecting two-call tool with no output schema, the description explains both what each call returns and the human-in-the-loop gate before submission. Error handling and token expiry are the remaining unstated pieces, but nothing essential to calling it correctly 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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, and the confirmation token is valid only in step 2 after approval. It also restates the consent wording, which the schema already carries, so it is additive rather than fully compensating.

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 Buffrota') and immediately scopes it with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote', which separates it from transactional tools and from the sibling enquiry_fields lookup. The purpose is unmistakable without opening the schema.

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 explicit two-step protocol: step 1 with answers + consent=true, then step 2 only after 'the person agrees' and only with the returned token. The conditional is stated as a precondition, not left to inference, and it names the sibling enquiry_fields as the source of field 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
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