Skip to main content
Glama

site

by com.incorporatewhere
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Incorporate Where — 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: "Send my contact details to up to three US incorporation services, chosen by Incorporate Where, who'll contact me directly. I'll be emailed each firm's name as my details go to it, and can stop any more firms getting them."

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
answersYesthe person's answers, keyed by field key
consentYestrue only when the person has agreed to: Send my contact details to up to three US incorporation services, chosen by Incorporate Where, who'll contact me directly. I'll be emailed each firm's name as my details go to it, and can stop any more firms getting them.
confirmationNothe confirmation token from step 1, after the person has approved the summary

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / consent / description
      Previous value: -"true only when the person has agreed to: Happy for my details to go to a relevant cross-border corporate adviser, who'll contact me directly."New value: +"true only when the person has agreed to: Send my contact details to up to three US incorporation services, chosen by Incorporate Where, who'll contact me directly. I'll be emailed each firm's name as my details go to it, and can stop any more firms getting them."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the two-phase gating, that step 1 is a non-committal validation returning a summary/consent line/token, that submission triggers an email the person must click before any provider sees the enquiry, and the exact consent semantics. These are non-obvious side effects an agent could not infer from the schema.

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 purpose and the two steps clearly delineated, so an agent can act on the first sentence. It loses a point because the full consent paragraph is reproduced verbatim from the schema's consent description, which is duplication rather than added value.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what step 2 causes (submission plus a verification email), which is exactly the information needed to drive the flow correctly. Nothing material is missing for a 3-param, 2-step tool.

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 real meaning: it ties 'answers' to field keys originating in enquiry_fields, states consent must be true at both steps, and explains that 'confirmation' comes from step 1 only after the person approves the summary. That cross-step interaction is not derivable from the schema alone.

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 (submits) and resource (an enquiry to Incorporate Where) and immediately disambiguates scope with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. An agent can distinguish this from sibling tools like enquiry_fields or enquiry_describe without opening any 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 with the exact condition that selects each step: step 1 with answers + consent=true, step 2 only 'if the person agrees' with the confirmation token. It also names the prerequisite data source (field keys from enquiry_fields), leaving nothing to inference.

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