Skip to main content
Glama

site

by com.leaveloadingcalculator

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Leave Loading Calculator — 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 workplace relations adviser or payroll specialist, 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 workplace relations adviser or payroll specialist, 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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the two-step nature, the non-purchase/non-quote status, the consent requirement (including the exact consent text), and that an email link must be clicked before any provider sees the enquiry. This is highly transparent about side effects and prerequisites.

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?

Although lengthy, every sentence serves a purpose. The description is front-loaded with the key distinction (NOT a purchase), then flows logically through step 1 and step 2, including the exact consent text. No redundancy or filler.

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 consent and confirmation token, the description covers the entire workflow: validation, summary display, consent line, token reuse, final submission, and email link requirement. Without an output schema, it explains what to show the user (summary and consent line). No critical information is missing.

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 schema documents each parameter. The description adds meaningful context: it explains that 'confirmation' is the token from step 1, that 'answers' must be the same in both calls, and that 'consent' must be true. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 explicitly states the tool submits an enquiry, and immediately clarifies it is NOT a purchase or guaranteed quote. It distinguishes from siblings by naming the two-step flow and the consent requirement, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

Provides explicit step-by-step usage: step 1 for validation with answers and consent, showing the summary, then step 2 only if the person agrees, using the same answers plus the confirmation token. It also specifies the condition for proceeding (person agrees) and the email click requirement, which is essential for correct usage.

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 targets a distinct function: calculating, describing the calculator, describing the enquiry flow, listing enquiry fields, and submitting the enquiry. Even the two 'describe' tools are clearly separated by subject matter (calculator vs. enquiry).

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming patterns are inconsistent: 'calculate' is a bare verb, 'submit_enquiry' is verb_noun, while 'calculator_describe' and 'enquiry_describe' are noun_verb, and 'enquiry_fields' is noun_noun. The mixed conventions make the toolset feel less predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Five tools is well-scoped for a calculator-plus-enquiry site. Each tool has a clear role and none feel redundant or missing.

Completeness5/5

The surface covers the full user journey: describe the calculator, run the calculation, understand the enquiry, get the field schema, and submit with consent confirmation. No obvious dead ends or missing operations for this domain.

Resources