Skip to main content
Glama

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to DIFC vs ADGM — 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 UAE and Saudi company set-up agents, chosen by DIFC vs ADGM, 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 UAE and Saudi company set-up agents, chosen by DIFC vs ADGM, 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: Send my contact details to up to three relevant UAE corporate and regulatory advisers, chosen by DIFC vs ADGM, 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."New value: +"true only when the person has agreed to: Send my contact details to up to three UAE and Saudi company set-up agents, chosen by DIFC vs ADGM, 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. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / consent / description
      Previous value: -"true only when the person has agreed to: Happy for my details to go to a relevant UAE corporate and regulatory adviser, who'll contact me directly."New value: +"true only when the person has agreed to: Send my contact details to up to three relevant UAE corporate and regulatory advisers, chosen by DIFC vs ADGM, 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."
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
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: it discloses validation, the returned summary/consent line/confirmation token, that submission triggers an email with a click-through link required before any provider sees the data, and the exact consent semantics. It also states the outward side effect (contact details sent to up to three agents).

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 purpose and the key negative caveat, and the step-by-step structure is easy to follow. It loses a point because the full consent sentence is quoted verbatim, duplicating the identical text already present in the schema's consent description.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains what each step returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what happens downstream (email verification before provider visibility). For a nested-answers, two-phase mutation tool, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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, and the description goes further by explaining that answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields and that confirmation is only supplied on the second call after the summary is approved. It does not add format details for individual answer values, keeping it below a 5.

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 (submits) and resource (an enquiry to human providers) and immediately scopes it with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote', which separates it from what an agent might otherwise assume a submission tool does. Sibling tools (enquiry_fields) are referenced by name, so the agent can place it in the workflow.

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 an explicit two-step procedure: Step 1 call with answers + consent=true to validate and get a token, Step 2 call again only if the person agrees. It names the condition that selects each call and the alternative path (do not proceed without agreement), leaving nothing to inference.

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