Skip to main content
Glama

site

by com.citizenshipdescentchecker

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Citizenship Descent Checker — 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 citizenship service, 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 citizenship service, 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 burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the two-step validation behavior, the confirmation-token requirement, the exact consent wording, that email notification happens, and that the provider only sees the enquiry after the person clicks the email link. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 anti-purpose caveats, the two-step sequence, the consent line, and the email-link behavior are all operationally necessary. The Step 1/Step 2 structure front-loads the most important call sequence and makes the flow easy for an agent to follow.

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?

Given a two-step, multi-call workflow with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains what Step 1 returns, what Step 2 requires, what the consent condition is, and what downstream behavior the user should expect. There is no critical missing operational information for an agent to select and call the tool 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 the baseline is 3. The description adds real value by explaining that answers are 'keyed by field key from enquiry_fields,' that the same answers must be reused in Step 2, and that the confirmation parameter comes from Step 1's response. These relationships are not visible in the schema alone.

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 verb and resource: submitting an enquiry to Citizenship Descent Checker. It immediately distinguishes itself from a purchase and a guaranteed quote, and the two-step process uniquely separates it from the sibling checker and enquiry tools.

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 procedural guidance for when to call the tool (Step 1 first, then Step 2 only after agreement) and includes important exclusions like 'not a purchase' and 'not a guaranteed quote.' It does not directly compare against sibling tool names, but the two-step workflow and linking to enquiry_fields provide sufficient context for correct use.

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

Each tool has a clearly distinct role: checker_start and checker_answer handle interactive progression, checker_tree provides the full decision map for offline reasoning, and the enquiry_* tools separate explanation, schema, and submission. Even where data overlaps, the descriptions clearly indicate which tool to use for which purpose.

Naming Consistency4/5

The checker_ and enquiry_ prefixes create a useful grouping pattern, and all names are lowercase snake_case. The only minor inconsistency is submit_enquiry using verb-first naming while the other enquiry tools use the enquiry_ prefix, but this does not create real confusion.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is a well-scoped size for this server: three cover the decision guide interaction and three cover the enquiry flow. Each tool earns its place with no redundant or trivial additions.

Completeness5/5

The decision guide is fully covered by start, answer, and tree, allowing both step-by-step and end-to-end reasoning. The enquiry flow is also complete with explainer, field schema, and a two-step consent-based submission process, leaving no obvious dead ends.

Resources