Skip to main content
Glama

site

by com.get409avaluation

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Get 409A Valuation — 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 409A valuation providers, 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 409A valuation providers, 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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure: it warns that this is not a purchase or guaranteed quote, explains that step 1 only validates, and discloses that submission triggers a customer email with a mandatory click before providers see the enquiry. It also specifies the exact consent meaning.

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 dense and step-organized, with the key non-purchase warning front-loaded. It is longer than minimal because it must encode a two-step workflow and exact consent text, but most sentences carry necessary information; a slight redundancy with the title's 'not a purchase' keeps it from a 5.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers everything needed: what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token), what to show the person, when to make the second call, and the post-submission email-link behavior. Nested answers are explained via field keys, leaving no critical gap for an agent.

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, and the description adds meaningful semantics: answers must be keyed by enquiry_fields keys, consent must match the exact consent statement, and confirmation is the token returned from step 1. This clarifies relationships between parameters beyond the schema field names.

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 Get 409A Valuation') and immediately disambiguates it from a purchase or guaranteed quote. The title reinforces the two-step nature, and the description references enquiry_fields for field keys, making its role in the workflow clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives an explicit two-step invocation sequence: first call with answers and consent=true to obtain a summary/token, second call with the token only after the person agrees. It does not explicitly compare against sibling checker tools, but it clearly states the conditions and decision point for using 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

The two functional areas are clearly separated: checker_* tools handle an interactive decision tree, while enquiry_* tools handle the enquiry submission flow. Within each group, each tool has a distinct role: start/answer/tree for the checker, and describe/fields/submit for the enquiry.

Naming Consistency4/5

All names are lowercase snake_case and mostly use domain prefixes (checker_ and enquiry_), which is easy to read and predict. The minor inconsistency is submit_enquiry, which reverses the domain/action order compared to enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is a well-scoped count: three tools cover the interactive checklist flow and three cover the enquiry submission flow. Each tool has a clear purpose and none feel redundant.

Completeness5/5

The checker flow is complete: start begins, answer progresses, and tree provides the full decision graph for end-to-end reasoning. The enquiry flow is also complete: describe explains the process, fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry handles both validation and final submission with confirmation.

Resources