Skip to main content
Glama

site

by com.businessvaluenow

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Business Value Now — 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 valuation firms, 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 valuation firms, 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

A4.7/5.0
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 it does so thoroughly. It discloses the two-step stateful nature, the validation return, the consent line to show the user, the email with a click-through link, and the exact consent text. This is far beyond what the empty annotations provide.

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 earns its place: it front-loads the critical 'not a purchase' caveat, then uses a clear Step 1/Step 2 structure. The consent text is included exactly as required, and no redundant filler is present.

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 complex two-step tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the full workflow, what to show the user, when to call again, the email link requirement, and the consent condition. Nothing essential to invoking the tool 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%, but the description enriches the parameters by explaining their role in the workflow: answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must be true in both steps, and the confirmation token is the link between step 1 and step 2. This adds operational meaning beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 tool's purpose: 'Submits an enquiry to Business Value Now' and immediately disambiguates it with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' This aligns with the title and makes it distinct from the sibling tools, which center on checking or describing enquiries rather than submitting them.

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 explicit step-by-step usage context: call once with answers and consent to get a summary and confirmation token, then call again with the token only after the person agrees. It also references enquiry_fields as the source of answer keys, implying prerequisite knowledge, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this one.

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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

The six tools cleanly split into two domains: the checker_* tools handle the decision guide lifecycle (start, progress, full tree) and the enquiry_* tools handle the enquiry form (description, fields, submission). Each tool has a specific, non-overlapping role, and the submit_enquiry tool's two-step confirmation is clearly documented.

Naming Consistency4/5

The tool names follow a clear prefix convention: checker_* for the decision guide and enquiry_* for the enquiry workflow. There is slight inconsistency in whether the prefix is followed by a noun or verb (e.g., checker_start vs checker_tree), but the overall pattern is predictable and readable.

Tool Count5/5

With six tools, the server is well-scoped. Each tool serves a distinct purpose in one of the two workflows, and there are no redundant or filler tools.

Completeness5/5

The checker workflow is complete with start, step-by-step progression, and a full tree for end-to-end reasoning. The enquiry workflow is also complete, covering descriptive context, field schema, and a two-step submission process with explicit consent handling.

Resources