Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

site

by com.injectionmoldingcostchecker
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Injection Molding Cost Checker: 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 sending this you agree the Injection Molding Cost Checker team reads your enquiry and replies by email. We do not pass it to anyone else."

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 sending this you agree the Injection Molding Cost Checker team reads your enquiry and replies by email. We do not pass it to anyone else.
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: By submitting you agree Injection Molding Cost Checker shares your part details with manufacturers who may contact you with a price."New value: +"true only when the person has agreed to: By sending this you agree the Injection Molding Cost Checker team reads your enquiry and replies by email. We do not pass it to anyone else."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
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 well: it discloses validation on step 1, the returned summary/consent line/token, and the post-submission email-verification gate before any provider sees the enquiry. What is missing is failure behavior (what a validation rejection looks like) and whether a step-1 call has side effects.

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 disclaimers, then cleanly segmented into Step 1 and Step 2, which is the right structure for a multi-call protocol. The consent sentence is quoted verbatim even though the schema already contains it, which is mild redundancy in an otherwise dense description.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: the two-call sequence, what step 1 returns, the human-approval gate, the email-confirmation gate, and where the answer keys come from. Nothing essential is left to inference.

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, but the description adds genuine semantics: consent=true is a precondition rather than a flag, and 'confirmation' should only be supplied on the second call after human approval. It also explains that answers are keyed by field keys obtained from enquiry_fields.

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 Injection Molding Cost Checker') and immediately bounds the outcome with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' That framing separates it from the dataset_* and enquiry_describe siblings, which are informational rather than submission actions.

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 confirmation token added. It also names the prerequisite sibling ('field key from enquiry_fields') so the agent knows what to call first.

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