Skip to main content
Glama

site

by com.comparetradesoftware

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Compare Trade 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 trade software suppliers and setup 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 trade software suppliers and setup 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

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden and delivers: it explains the validation-then-submit pattern, the consent requirement with the exact consent line, and the email-link click that must occur before providers see the enquiry. It also clarifies what step 1 returns and what step 2 triggers.

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 detailed but every sentence earns its place, with the core purpose and 'not a purchase' caveat front-loaded before the step-by-step instructions. The numbered steps are clear and logically ordered, making the process 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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete enough for correct invocation: it explains inputs, the two-step workflow, the confirmation token, the consent semantics, and the email-link outcome. No critical behavioral detail needed to use the tool safely and correctly 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 significant meaning beyond the schema: answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must match the exact quoted agreement, and confirmation is the token from step 1. This gives the agent operational understanding that the schema alone does not.

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 to Compare Trade Software') and explicitly distinguishes itself from a purchase and a guaranteed quote. It clearly differentiates from sibling comparison tools and enquiry information tools by describing what this tool alone does.

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 an explicit two-step workflow, telling the agent exactly when to call step 1 and when to call step 2. It also references enquiry_fields as the source of answer keys and explicitly warns against using this tool as a purchase or quote mechanism.

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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

The three compare_* tools are clearly separated by data role: criteria, options, and the full table. The enquiry_*/submit_enquiry tools similarly split schema/context/action with no overlapping purposes.

Naming Consistency4/5

All names are snake_case and readable, but the compare_* group uses verb-first names while enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields step outside that pattern. submit_enquiry matches the verb-first style, so the inconsistency is minor.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is well-scoped: three cover the comparison data surface and three cover the enquiry workflow. No tool feels redundant and the count suits a focused niche comparison site.

Completeness5/5

The surface covers the full user journey: browse comparison criteria/options/table, inspect the enquiry form, and submit with explicit two-step consent. There are no obvious dead ends or missing core operations for this domain.

Resources