Skip to main content
Glama

site

by com.conveyancingfeesaustralia

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Conveyancing Fees Australia — 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 relevant licensed conveyancers or property solicitors in my state, who'll quote 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 relevant licensed conveyancers or property solicitors in my state, who'll quote 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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations available, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses validation behavior, the step-1 return artifacts (summary, consent line, confirmation token), the requirement for the person's agreement before step 2, and the side effect that the person must click an emailed link before any provider sees the enquiry.

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 well-structured as Step 1 and Step 2, with the non-purchase disclaimer upfront. The only notable redundancy is repeating the exact consent wording that already appears in the schema, which adds length without new information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description does a strong job: it covers the two call variants, required inputs, step-1 return values, and the post-submission email-link behavior. The main gap is that it does not describe the step-2 return value or any error/edge-case behavior, but the tool remains usable from the description alone.

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. The description adds meaningful context: answers must be keyed per enquiry_fields, consent=true must accompany the exact quoted agreement, and the confirmation parameter is the step-1 token reused in step 2. This is helpful context beyond the already clear schema property descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Submits an enquiry to Conveyancing Fees Australia' and immediately excludes misuse by saying it is NOT a purchase or guaranteed quote. It also references the sibling tool enquiry_fields as the source of answer keys, helping to distinguish the submission action from companion tools.

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 an explicit two-step protocol: call with answers and consent=true, show the summary and consent line, then call again with the confirmation token only if the person agrees. It states key exclusions (not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote), but it does not explicitly say when to choose enquiry_describe or enquiry_fields over this tool.

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

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct responsibility: one explains the process, one provides the field schema, and one performs the submission. There is no meaningful overlap or boundary ambiguity.

Naming Consistency3/5

The names are readable and share the 'enquiry' root, but the pattern is inconsistent: enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields use a noun-first structure while submit_enquiry uses verb-first. This creates minor style inconsistency without losing meaning.

Tool Count5/5

Three tools is well-scoped for a single enquiry submission workflow. It avoids bloat while providing the necessary orientation, schema, and submission functions.

Completeness5/5

The set fully covers the enquiry lifecycle: describing the process, obtaining valid fields, and submitting with consent and confirmation. No obvious gap exists for the stated purpose.

Resources