Skip to main content
Glama

site

by com.eligiblebydescent

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Eligible By Descent — 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 Portuguese nationality lawyers, 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 Portuguese nationality lawyers, 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 discloses the behavioral contract: no purchase/quote, consent is required, a confirmation token gates final submission, and the person receives an email with a click link before any provider sees the enquiry. It also exposes the exact consent wording the person must agree to.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, non-use, step 1 behavior, step 2 behavior, and the email-link side effect are all covered. The two-step protocol is front-loaded and easy to follow.

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 two-step submit tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers necessary prerequisites, exact consent text, the summary/consent-line/confirmation output of step 1, and the post-submission email requirement. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant meaning: answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must be true only after the person approves the specific consent line, and confirmation is the step-1 token to be reused in step 2. These semantics go well beyond the raw 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 ('Submits an enquiry') and resource ('Eligible By Descent'), and immediately distinguishes the tool from a purchase or guaranteed quote. It also clearly frames the two-step nature of the action, so an agent can understand what the tool is for.

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 explicit when-to-use instructions: step 1 validates and returns a confirmation token, step 2 is used only after the person approves the summary. It also excludes non-uses ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') and references enquiry_fields as the source of answer keys.

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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool maps to a clear, distinct step: checker_start begins the guide, checker_answer advances it, checker_tree provides the full map, and the enquiry tools cover description, schema, and submission. There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between the tools.

Naming Consistency4/5

The checker_* and enquiry_* prefixes clearly group the two workflows, and most names read predictably. Slight inconsistency exists because submit_enquiry reverses the prefix/verb pattern and checker_tree is a noun rather than an action, but the overall pattern remains understandable.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is well-scoped for the server's two distinct purposes: a three-tool decision guide and a three-tool enquiry workflow. Each tool earns its place and the count is neither bloated nor thin.

Completeness5/5

The decision guide covers start, progression, and full tree access, so agents can navigate the entire flow. The enquiry workflow covers explanation, field schema, and the full two-step submission process, leaving no obvious dead ends or missing steps.

Resources