Skip to main content
Glama

site

by com.cyprusgrosstonet

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Cyprus Gross to Net — 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 a relevant Cyprus payroll accountant, 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 a relevant Cyprus payroll accountant, 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, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains validation, the intermediate summary and confirmation token, the required human approval, the email link, and the fact that no provider sees the enquiry until the link is clicked. It also quotes the exact consent wording.

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 purpose and key exclusions are front-loaded, followed by a clearly numbered Step 1/Step 2 structure. Every sentence carries necessary information for a sensitive two-step consent flow, and there is no filler.

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 complex tool with no output schema, the description covers the full workflow: validation, intermediate return values, human confirmation, email verification, and provider visibility. An agent has enough guidance to invoke both steps correctly and safely.

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 the schema already describes the parameters, the description adds essential sequence-level meaning: answers must be keyed from enquiry_fields, consent=true encodes the quoted agreement, and confirmation must be the token obtained from step 1 after approval. This is substantial value beyond the schema.

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 verb and resource: 'Submits an enquiry to Cyprus Gross to Net.' It also clearly excludes related actions ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') and specifies that the recipient is human providers, distinguishing it from calculator and describe-type siblings.

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 gives an explicit two-step protocol: call with answers and consent=true, show the returned summary and consent line, then call again only if the person agrees, adding the confirmation token. It also points to enquiry_fields for the answer keys and states when the tool is not appropriate.

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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: calculate executes the calculator, calculator_describe explains it, enquiry_describe explains the enquiry flow, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the submission. No two tools appear to do the same thing.

Naming Consistency3/5

The names are readable and all use snake_case, but they mix verb-first naming like calculate and submit_enquiry with noun-first naming like calculator_describe and enquiry_fields. This inconsistency is noticeable but not chaotic.

Tool Count5/5

Five tools is well-scoped for this server: two tools cover the calculator itself and its documentation, and three tools cover the enquiry lifecycle. Each tool earns its place without unnecessary overlap or bloat.

Completeness5/5

The tool set fully covers the advertised domain: calculation, calculator metadata, enquiry process explanation, enquiry field schema, and the two-step submission flow. There are no obvious gaps that would prevent an agent from completing the intended workflow.

Resources