Skip to main content
Glama

site

by com.floridawaterdamagecost

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Florida Water Damage Cost — 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 local water damage restoration companies, 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 local water damage restoration companies, 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 provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It reveals the validation step, the returned summary/consent/token, the need for a second confirmation call, the email link the person must click, and the exact consent wording the person must have agreed to. This is substantial behavioral context beyond what the schema shows.

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 tightly organized, front-loading the core purpose and exclusions before laying out the two steps in order. Every sentence carries operational value—consent text, steps, email-link behavior—with no filler or redundancy.

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?

The two-step state machine is fully specified: what to send in step 1, what comes back, what to show the person, when to proceed, and what happens after submission. Even without an output schema, the agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly and safely.

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 crucial semantics: answers must be keyed by enquiry_fields, consent must match the quoted consent line, and confirmation is the token from step 1 used only in step 2. It explains the lifecycle and provenance of each parameter, which the bare schema does not convey.

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 Florida Water Damage Cost') and explicitly negates what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields by naming the submit action and referencing enquiry_fields for input keys.

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 provides an explicit two-step protocol: call first with answers and consent=true to get a confirmation token, then call again with that token only if the person agrees. It also names the preceding tool required to know field keys (enquiry_fields) and states exclusion criteria (not a purchase/quote), leaving no ambiguity about when and how to invoke the tool.

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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: one explains the process, one lists input fields, and one handles submission. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming follows a general pattern but is inconsistent in word order: 'enquiry_describe' and 'enquiry_fields' place the noun first, while 'submit_enquiry' places the verb first. This mixed convention could confuse an agent expecting a uniform verb_noun style.

Tool Count5/5

With only 3 tools, the set is tightly scoped to a single enquiry submission workflow. Each tool is necessary and sufficient for the stated purpose, making the count ideal for this narrow domain.

Completeness5/5

The tools cover the complete enquiry lifecycle: understand the process, retrieve field definitions, and submit with a two-step confirmation. There are no missing operations that would cause agent failure for the intended use case.

Resources