Skip to main content
Glama

site

by com.cyprusnondomcalculator

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Cyprus Non-Dom Calculator — 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 Cyprus tax adviser, 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 Cyprus tax adviser, 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 the full burden, and it is highly transparent: it explains the validation in step 1, the side effect in step 2 (submission and email), and the condition that the person must click the emailed link before any provider sees the enquiry. It also defines exactly what consent means.

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 dense and front-loaded with the non-purchase warning, then structured into numbered steps. It is longer than average, but the length is justified by the two-step protocol, though it could be lightly tightened.

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 input keys, consent semantics, step-1 return values, step-2 side effects, and the email-link prerequisite. Nothing essential to invoking it correctly 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful context: answers are keyed by enquiry_fields, consent uses an exact consent text, and the confirmation token must come from step 1 after the person approves the summary.

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: it submits an enquiry to human providers via Cyprus Non-Dom Calculator, and immediately contrasts it with what it is not (not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote). This clearly differentiates it from the calculation-focused sibling 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 two-step workflow is explicit: call first with answers and consent=true, show the summary and consent line, and call again only if the person agrees. It also warns it is not a purchase or guaranteed quote, but it does not explicitly name the alternative tool (e.g., calculate) for cases where an instant estimate is wanted.

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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: calculate performs the calculation, the two describe tools explain the calculator and enquiry respectively, enquiry_fields lists form fields, and submit_enquiry handles the multi-step submission. There is no meaningful overlap between them.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names are readable and mostly self-explanatory, but they mix patterns: calculate and submit_enquiry follow verb-first naming, while calculator_describe, enquiry_describe, and enquiry_fields are noun-first. The inconsistency is noticeable but not confusing.

Tool Count5/5

Five tools is well-scoped for this server's purpose: one calculation tool, two documentation/description tools, one fields-listing tool, and one submission tool. Each tool earns its place without redundancy or bloat.

Completeness5/5

The surface covers the full user journey: understanding the calculator, seeing the enquiry fields, validating consent, and submitting the enquiry with a confirmation token. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations within the stated domain.

Resources