Skip to main content
Glama

site

by com.comparecallanswering
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Compare Call 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: "Send my contact details to up to three call answering providers, chosen by Compare Call Answering, who'll contact me directly. I'll be emailed each firm's name as my details go to it, and can stop any more firms getting them."

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
answersYesthe person's answers, keyed by field key
consentYestrue only when the person has agreed to: Send my contact details to up to three call answering providers, chosen by Compare Call Answering, who'll contact me directly. I'll be emailed each firm's name as my details go to it, and can stop any more firms getting them.
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: Happy for my details to go to call answering providers, who'll contact me directly."New value: +"true only when the person has agreed to: Send my contact details to up to three call answering providers, chosen by Compare Call Answering, who'll contact me directly. I'll be emailed each firm's name as my details go to it, and can stop any more firms getting them."
  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 the full burden and does so well: it discloses validation behavior, the exact return contents (summary, consent line, confirmation token), the double-opt-in email/link gate before providers see the enquiry, and the meaning of consent. It does not mention error/retry behavior or the provider-count/timing beyond the 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the crucial 'NOT a purchase' disclaimer and orders the steps logically. It is somewhat long, however, and repeats the full consent paragraph verbatim from the schema, which is redundant bulk rather than new information.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description fully covers what is returned and why, the consent gate, and the two-step submission lifecycle. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly appears to be 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 workflow meaning: 'answers' is keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, and 'confirmation' is the token returned in step 1 and passed back in step 2. That ties each parameter to the two-step flow beyond the schema text.

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 Compare Call Answering') and immediately bounds scope with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote', clearly distinguishing it from the compare_* and enquiry_* siblings. An agent can tell what this does 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?

Lays out an explicit two-step protocol: step 1 with answers+consent to validate and get a token, step 2 only if the person agrees. It also routes the agent to the sibling 'enquiry_fields' for the field keys, giving both when-to-use and prerequisite context.

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