Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

site

by com.hostingbystack
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to HostingByStack: 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 HostingByStack emails you a recommendation and shares nothing else with anyone."

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "answers": "<answers>",
      "consent": "<consent>"
    },
    "name": "submit_enquiry"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
answersYesthe person's answers, keyed by field key
consentYestrue only when the person has agreed to: By submitting you agree HostingByStack emails you a recommendation and shares nothing else with anyone.
confirmationNothe confirmation token from step 1, after the person has approved the summary

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses that step 1 only validates and returns a summary, that the enquiry is not visible to providers until an emailed link is clicked, and that consent has a specific legal meaning. It stops short of describing failure behavior (what happens if answers fail validation) or whether step 1 persists any state, which matters for a two-call mutation.

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?

Front-loaded with the scope disclaimer, then cleanly structured as Step 1 / Step 2 with the consent text at the end. The full consent sentence appears in both the description and the schema, which is duplicated weight, and the opening negations plus the trailing quote make it longer than strictly necessary.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-call, nested-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the return artifacts of step 1 (summary, consent line, token) and the downstream effect (email with a required click). What is missing is error/recovery behavior and what to do if the person declines, which are the likely branches an agent will hit.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine sequencing semantics the schema cannot: the confirmation token is the artifact returned by step 1 and must be fed back into step 2, and consent is a gate the agent must satisfy from the person, not a default. It does, however, restate the consent sentence nearly verbatim from the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Submits an enquiry to HostingByStack") and immediately scopes it with two negations ("NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote") that separate it from what an agent might otherwise assume. It also points at the sibling that supplies the field keys (enquiry_fields), so the agent can differentiate without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit two-step protocol: step 1 with answers plus consent=true, then step 2 only "if the person agrees" with the same answers plus the confirmation token. The gate condition is spelled out rather than implied, and the human-in-the-loop requirement between steps is unambiguous.

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
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources