Skip to main content
Glama

site

by com.employeecostaustralia

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Employee Cost Australia — 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 an accountant or payroll provider, 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 an accountant or payroll provider, 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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the two-step nature, validation, return of summary/consent/token, the email link requirement, and the exact consent text. This is far more transparent than typical tools.

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 long but densely packed with necessary details, structured as step 1 and step 2 with front-loaded purpose. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more concise without losing critical flow information.

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?

Given the two-step complexity, absence of output schema, and no annotations, the description fully explains return values (summary, consent line, token), the email link behavior, and the consent requirement. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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 descriptions already cover each parameter (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that answers are keyed from enquiry_fields, that confirmation is only for step 2, and the flow relationship between parameters.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'submits' and the resource 'enquiry to Employee Cost Australia', explicitly distinguishing from a purchase or guaranteed quote. The two-step process is described, making it distinct from sibling tools like calculate or describe.

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?

Provides explicit step-by-step instructions for both calls, including when to use the confirmation token, and states exclusions ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). References enquiry_fields for the key mapping, giving clear context for when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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 targets a distinct concern: calculation, calculator metadata, enquiry process description, field schema, and submission. The two 'describe' tools are clearly scoped to different resources. No two tools could reasonably be confused.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case and use domain prefixes like 'calculator_' and 'enquiry_', but the verb/noun order is inconsistent: 'submit_enquiry' is verb_noun, 'calculator_describe' and 'enquiry_describe' are noun_verb, and 'calculate' is a bare verb. The set is readable but does not follow a uniform naming convention.

Tool Count5/5

Five tools is an appropriate, well-scoped size for a focused server covering a calculator and an enquiry flow. Each tool has a distinct role and none feels redundant or unnecessary.

Completeness5/5

The surface fully covers the apparent domain: running the calculator, understanding its inputs/outputs, learning about the enquiry process, fetching the exact field schema, and submitting the two-step enquiry. There are no obvious dead ends or missing required operations.

Resources