Skip to main content
Glama

site

by com.findagencyhq

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to FindAgency HQ — 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: "By submitting you agree FindAgency HQ shares your details with matched marketing agencies who may contact you."

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
answersYesthe person's answers, keyed by field key
consentYestrue only when the person has agreed to: By submitting you agree FindAgency HQ shares your details with matched marketing agencies who may contact you.
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. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that step 1 only validates and returns a summary/token, that step 2 triggers actual submission, and that a person must click an emailed link before providers see the enquiry. It does not cover failure modes or what happens if consent=false, but the core side effects are well disclosed.

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 detailed but every sentence earns its place: disambiguation, step 1, step 2, and the exact consent wording. It is front-loaded with the most important caveat ('NOT a purchase') and remains tightly structured despite covering a complex flow.

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 two-step, consent-gated submission flow with no output schema, the description is unusually complete. It tells the agent what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, token), what to show the person, when to proceed to step 2, and the post-submission email-link requirement. Nothing essential 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds workflow-level meaning beyond the schema: answers must be keyed by enquiry_fields keys, consent=true is required in both steps, and confirmation is the token obtained only after the person approves the step-1 summary. This clarifies how the parameters relate to the two-step process.

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 and resource ('Submits an enquiry to FindAgency HQ') and immediately disambiguates with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' It also names the two-step flow, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields.

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 step-by-step usage: step 1 with answers and consent, then step 2 only if the person agrees, with the confirmation token. It also references enquiry_fields for answer keys and warns against using this for purchases or guaranteed quotes, giving clear when/when-not guidance.

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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

The dataset_* tools are mostly distinct (columns vs provenance vs row vs search vs stats vs top vs compare), though dataset_row, dataset_search, and dataset_compare have overlapping filtering semantics. The enquiry_* tools are clearly distinct. Overall, descriptions clarify confusion, but minor ambiguity exists.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent lowercase_with_underscores naming convention, with a clear prefix (dataset_ or enquiry_/submit_). The pattern is predictable and uniform across the set.

Tool Count5/5

10 tools is a well-scoped number for a dataset querying and enquiry submission server. Each tool serves a distinct purpose without unnecessary bloat or redundancy.

Completeness4/5

The dataset tools cover the essential read-only operations (columns, provenance, row, search, stats, top, compare) and the enquiry tools cover the full submission flow (describe, fields, submit). Minor gaps exist like no update/cancel for enquiries, but these are not core to the server's stated purpose.

Resources