EntangleEQ

request_demo_lead

Use this ONLY after a user has explicitly agreed to be contacted by EntangleEQ, to submit their demo request. Records a demo request that the EntangleEQ team reviews before any follow-up. Collect the minimum needed: company name, contact name, and a professional email. Do NOT include salaries, employee names, or any sensitive personal/HR data in the message. Requires userConsent: true.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`email`	Yes	Professional email to reach the contact.
`message`	No	Optional short context. No sensitive personal data, no salaries, no employee names.
`companyName`	Yes	Company / organisation name.
`contactName`	Yes	Name of the person to contact back.
`userConsent`	Yes	Must be true. Confirms the end user explicitly agreed to share these contact details with EntangleEQ.
`primaryTopic`	No	Main interest: egapro \| pay_gap \| vss \| csrd \| global.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, but the description discloses key behaviors: requires user consent, no sensitive data, and that the request is reviewed before follow-up. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but for a simple submission tool this is adequate.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the critical usage condition. No filler, every sentence adds value.

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?

With 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, constraints, and workflow. It lacks details on the response or error handling, but for a simple creation tool this is largely sufficient.

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, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by emphasizing the minimum required fields and cautioning about the message field, reinforcing the schema constraints.

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 the tool's purpose: submitting demo requests after explicit user consent. It specifies the action ('records a demo request') and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools which are unrelated.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('only after a user has explicitly agreed'), what to collect (minimum: company name, contact name, email), and what not to include (sensitive data). Also clarifies the workflow (review before follow-up).

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

All EntangleEQ tools Inspect

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

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: readiness assessment, page fetching, demo request, search, and index simulation. No ambiguity or overlap.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming is mixed: some use snake_case (assess_readiness, simulate_index_2027), others are single words (fetch, search) or verb_noun (request_demo_lead). While readable, the pattern is inconsistent.

Tool Count5/5

Five tools is well-scoped for the domain of pay transparency and demo requests. Each tool earns its place without redundancy.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the key workflows: readiness check, public information retrieval (search + fetch), demo request, and index simulation. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.

Resources

Need Help?