Skip to main content
Glama

site

by com.jetoperatingcost

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Jet Operating 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 a relevant aircraft management company or broker, 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 a relevant aircraft management company or broker, 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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it delivers: it explains validation, the returned summary/consent line/confirmation token, the consent condition, the email with a click link, and the exact consent wording. It also shows the human-in-the-loop ordering that an agent needs to follow.

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 dense but well-organized with clear 'Step 1' and 'Step 2' labels, front-loaded exclusions, and no wasted sentences. The quoted consent text is repeated, but it is operationally necessary for the agent to display it verbatim.

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, stateful submission tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete: it covers the first call, the returned token, the confirmation call, the email follow-up, and the consent requirement. An agent can invoke the tool correctly without needing additional context.

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?

The schema already covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful step semantics: answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must be true only after explicit agreement to the quoted text, and confirmation is the token returned from step 1. This goes beyond 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Submits an enquiry to Jet Operating Cost') and immediately clarifies what it is not: NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote. This clearly differentiates it from the calculator-style siblings and makes the tool's role unmistakable.

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 explicit two-step usage instructions: call without the confirmation token first, then call again with it only if the person agrees. It also excludes purchase/quote use cases. It does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives, so it misses the highest bar for routing.

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

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: calculate runs the cost model, enquiry_describe explains what an enquiry does, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the submission. There is no meaningful overlap between them.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case, but the pattern is mixed: calculate is a bare verb, submit_enquiry is verb_noun, enquiry_describe is noun_verb, and enquiry_fields is noun_noun. The names are still readable and understandable, but they do not follow one consistent convention.

Tool Count5/5

At roughly four to five tools, the set is well-scoped for a narrow site workflow covering a calculator and an enquiry submission flow. Each tool earns its place, and the count feels appropriately lean rather than bloated.

Completeness3/5

The enquiry workflow is well covered with describe, fields, and a two-step submit flow. However, the calculator side only exposes calculate with no equivalent describe or fields tool to discover its input parameters and defaults, which is a notable gap for agent usability.

Resources