Skip to main content
Glama

site

by com.compareanswering

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Compare Answering — 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 US answering service providers, 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 US answering service providers, 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

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the two-step stateful flow, validation and token return, the exact consent wording, the email notification, and the requirement to click a link before any provider sees the enquiry. This is rich and transparent.

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 key non-purchase clarification is front-loaded, and the two-step workflow is clearly structured with numbered steps. No filler or redundant repetition of schema fields.

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 the tool's two-step stateful complexity, absence of annotations, and lack of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers consent text, token handling, email link requirement, and even points to the sibling enquiry_fields tool for key definitions. Nothing essential is missing.

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 the schema: it explains that answers are keyed by enquiry_fields keys, that consent must be true only with the exact consent statement, and that the confirmation token is only needed in Step 2. This clarifies the optional parameter's role far better than 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Submits an enquiry to Compare Answering') and immediately clarifies what it is NOT ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling comparison tools and leaves no ambiguity about the operation.

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?

The description provides explicit step-by-step usage: Step 1 with answers and consent=true, then Step 2 with the confirmation token after the person approves. It also references enquiry_fields for the field keys, giving the agent a clear path to correct invocation and sequencing.

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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: compare_criteria, compare_options, and compare_table target different aspects of the comparison data, while enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields, and submit_enquiry each handle a separate step of the enquiry workflow. No two tools overlap in a way that would cause misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming mostly follows a consistent domain-prefix pattern: compare_* for the comparison data and enquiry_* for the enquiry flow. The outlier is submit_enquiry, which inverts the pattern to verb_noun instead of noun_prefix_noun, creating a minor deviation.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is well-scoped for this server's purpose: three tools cover the comparison aspect and three cover the enquiry process. Each tool earns its place, and the count feels neither sparse nor bloated.

Completeness5/5

The tool set provides complete coverage for the domain: comparison data (criteria, options, full table) and the full enquiry lifecycle (description, form fields, two-step submission). There are no obvious missing operations that would cause agent failures.

Resources