Skip to main content
Glama

site

by com.comparecallanswering

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: "Happy for my details to go to call answering 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 call answering 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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses the two-step statefulness, validation returning a summary and token, the need to show the person the summary and consent line, the email with a click link, the condition that providers only see the enquiry after the click, and the exact consent wording. This is exemplary transparency.

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?

The description is long but logically structured into Step 1 and Step 2, with each sentence carrying essential workflow, consent, or side-effect information. A little redundant with the title, but the detail is justified for a two-step sensitive submission.

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, the description covers the response from step 1 (summary, consent line, confirmation token), the exact condition for step 2, the email side effect, and the provider-visibility rule. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds workflow meaning: answers are keyed from enquiry_fields, confirmation is the token returned in step 1, and consent must match the quoted statement. This helps an agent understand how the parameters interact across the two calls.

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?

Description states a specific action ('Submits an enquiry to Compare Call Answering') and immediately clarifies what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like compare_* and enquiry_describe/enquiry_fields by being the actual submission action, reinforced by the title's 'two steps; not a purchase'.

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 step-by-step usage flow: first call with answers and consent, obtain confirmation token, then call again only if the person agrees. It also references enquiry_fields for keying answers, implying a prerequisite. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the boundary against purchase/quote is explicit.

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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

The three compare_* tools are the only potentially overlapping group, but their descriptions clearly separate criteria, options, and the full value table. The enquiry_* tools are distinct and even include a read-first descriptor to avoid misuse.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most names follow a verb_noun style such as compare_criteria and submit_enquiry, but enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields are noun-first, creating mixed conventions within the enquiry cluster. The names remain readable and the prefix groups help navigation.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is well-scoped for a comparison site: three cover browsing the comparison data and three cover the enquiry flow. Each tool has a clear reason to exist without redundancy.

Completeness5/5

The comparison side offers criteria, options, and a full matrix, while the enquiry side covers description, field schema, and a two-step validated submission with consent and confirmation. There are no obvious dead ends or missing lifecycle steps for this narrow domain.

Resources