Skip to main content
Glama

site

by com.dentalsoftwarecompare

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Dental Software Compare — 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 dental software specialist, 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 dental software specialist, 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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the two-step interaction, exact consent text, email with click-link before provider sees it, and that the confirmation token is required. This is comprehensive and leaves no ambiguity about the operation's behavior.

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 long but necessary for the two-step process. It front-loads the core purpose and then walks through each step with clear sequencing. Every sentence adds value; no fluff or redundancy.

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?

Complete for a two-step submission tool with no output schema. It covers validation, token, consent, email link, and the condition that provider sees it only after email click. The agent knows exactly how to call and what to expect at each step.

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 has 100% coverage, baseline 3. The description adds usage semantics: answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must be true, and confirmation token from step 1 is reused. This enriches beyond the schema's 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 clearly states it 'Submits an enquiry to Dental Software Compare' and explicitly contrasts with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. The title reinforces the two-step nature. It distinguishes from sibling tools (compare_*, enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields) by focusing on submission rather than comparison or field lookup.

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?

Provides an explicit two-step workflow with consent requirements, and references enquiry_fields for field keys, implicitly guiding the agent to use that sibling first. It clarifies what it is not (purchase, guaranteed quote) but does not explicitly name alternative tools for when to use them instead.

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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

The tools are clearly separated into two groups: comparison (criteria, options, table) and enquiry (describe, fields, submit). Within each group, each tool has a distinct purpose with no overlap, making it easy for an agent to select the right one.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (compare_criteria, compare_options, compare_table, submit_enquiry), but enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields reverse the order. While readable and predictable, this minor inconsistency prevents a perfect score.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is well-scoped for the server's purpose of comparing dental software and submitting enquiries. Each tool covers a necessary function without redundancy or bloat.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface fully covers the core workflow: retrieving comparison data (criteria, options, full table) and handling the enquiry process (description, fields, submission). No obvious gaps exist for the stated domain.

Resources