Skip to main content
Glama

site

by com.comparehvacsoftware

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Compare HVAC Software — 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 HVAC software suppliers and specialists, 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 HVAC software suppliers and specialists, 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, the description carries the full burden, and it fully delivers: it reveals the two-step validation flow, the consent line, the confirmation token requirement, the email follow-up, and the fact that providers only see the enquiry after the person clicks the link. This is far more than a generic 'submit enquiry' description.

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. It front-loads the key caveat ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'), then organizes the two-step flow clearly, and states the consent text verbatim rather than paraphrasing.

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?

Despite having no output schema or annotations, the description fully covers what happens before, during, and after the call: validation, returned summary, consent line, token, email, and provider visibility. Nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly is left unspecified.

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 meaningful semantics: 'answers keyed by field key from enquiry_fields', 'confirmation token from step 1', and the exact consent condition. This tells the agent where the parameter values come from and how they relate 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?

The description states a specific action ('Submits an enquiry') and a specific resource ('to Compare HVAC Software'), and immediately clarifies what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). This clearly distinguishes it from the comparison-focused sibling tools like compare_options and compare_table.

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 step-by-step usage: Step 1 validates and returns a summary and confirmation token, and Step 2 only proceeds if the person agrees and the token is supplied. It also sets an exclusion boundary by saying it is not a purchase or guaranteed quote, though it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools.

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

The three compare_* tools cleanly separate criteria, options, and the full table, while the three enquiry_* tools separate explanation, field schemas, and submission. No two tools appear to serve the same purpose.

Naming Consistency4/5

All names use lowercase snake_case, and the compare_* and enquiry_* prefixes create clear grouping. Slight inconsistency exists because compare_* uses verb_noun while enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields put the noun first, but this is readable and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is well-scoped for this server: three cover the comparison surface and three cover the enquiry workflow. Each tool has a distinct role without unnecessary bloat.

Completeness5/5

The comparison side fully covers criteria, options, and the full table, while the enquiry side covers explanation, fields, and the two-step submission flow. There are no obvious missing operations for the stated domain.

Resources