Skip to main content
Glama

site

by com.caspchecklist

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to CASP Checklist — 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 MiCA authorisation 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 MiCA authorisation 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 burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the two-call side effect, email delivery, the link-click requirement before providers see the enquiry, the validation step, and the precise consent text.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place. The two-step flow is clearly structured and front-loaded with the crucial non-purchase caveat, and there is no filler or repetition beyond what is operationally necessary.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description covers the complete workflow: what is returned in step 1, what the agent must show the person, when to proceed to step 2, what triggers submission, and what happens after submission. No essential behavior is left unexplained.

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 meaning beyond field names: answers are keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields, consent must be true with the exact consent wording, and confirmation is the token returned from step 1. This step-to-parameter linkage is not present 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?

States a specific action ('Submits an enquiry to CASP Checklist') and explicitly contrasts it with a purchase or guaranteed quote. The title and description both communicate the two-step nature, so an agent can distinguish this from sibling tools like enquiry_describe or enquiry_fields.

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?

Provides a clear two-step protocol: first call with answers and consent to get a token, then second call with the token only after the person agrees. It says what the tool is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'), but it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools for other use cases.

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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

The tools split cleanly into two workflows: the checker guide (start, answer, tree) and the enquiry flow (describe, fields, submit). Each tool has a clearly distinct role, and there is no meaningful overlap between them.

Naming Consistency3/5

The prefixes 'checker_' and 'enquiry_' provide useful grouping, but the action positioning is inconsistent: some tools are verb-led ('checker_start', 'enquiry_describe') while others are noun-led ('checker_tree', 'enquiry_fields') and one reverses the pattern ('submit_enquiry'). It is still readable, but not fully predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is a well-scoped set covering two focused workflows without unnecessary redundancy. Each tool earns its place, and the count feels appropriate for the server's purpose.

Completeness5/5

The checker workflow is complete: start, step through, and inspect the whole tree. The enquiry workflow is also complete: understand what it does, see the required fields, and submit with confirmation. No obvious gaps or dead ends exist for the stated purpose.

Resources