Skip to main content
Glama

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to DamageRestore HQ — 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: "Send my contact details to up to three local water damage and mould restoration companies, chosen by DamageRestore HQ, who'll contact me directly. I'll be emailed each firm's name as my details go to it, and can stop any more firms getting them."

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "answers": "<answers>",
      "consent": "<consent>"
    },
    "name": "submit_enquiry"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
answersYesthe person's answers, keyed by field key
consentYestrue only when the person has agreed to: Send my contact details to up to three local water damage and mould restoration companies, chosen by DamageRestore HQ, who'll contact me directly. I'll be emailed each firm's name as my details go to it, and can stop any more firms getting them.
confirmationNothe confirmation token from step 1, after the person has approved the summary

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / consent / description
      Previous value: -"true only when the person has agreed to: By submitting you agree DamageRestore HQ shares these details with matched local restoration companies."New value: +"true only when the person has agreed to: Send my contact details to up to three local water damage and mould restoration companies, chosen by DamageRestore HQ, who'll contact me directly. I'll be emailed each firm's name as my details go to it, and can stop any more firms getting them."
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
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 does so well: it discloses validation behavior, the returned summary/consent line/token, the required email-verification step before any provider sees the enquiry, and the downstream side effect of up to three companies contacting the person. It also explains what 'consent' legally means, which is the key behavioral contract.

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?

Front-loaded with the critical 'not a purchase' disambiguation, then structured as Step 1/Step 2. It is dense and repeats the full consent text already present in the schema, which is some redundancy, but the inline quote serves the 'show the person the consent line' instruction.

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?

For a complex, side-effecting, two-step mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the protocol, prerequisites, and consequences thoroughly. It omits what step 2 returns on success, validation-failure behavior, and re-submission/idempotency, which are the remaining gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning beyond the schema: answer keys come from enquiry_fields, consent must be true only after the person agrees, and confirmation is the token returned by step 1 and used only on the second call. It does not expand on value formats or validation rules, keeping it just above baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Submits an enquiry to DamageRestore HQ') and immediately bounds it with explicit negatives ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'), so an agent can distinguish it from quote/purchase flows without opening the schema. The two-step framing further pins down what the tool actually 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?

Gives explicit, conditional sequencing: call first with answers and consent=true to validate and get a token; call again only if the person agrees, adding the confirmation token. This is exactly the when/when-not guidance an agent needs for a multi-call protocol.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources