Skip to main content
Glama

site

by com.longserviceleavecalc

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Long Service Leave 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 relevant employment lawyer or workplace adviser, 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 employment lawyer or workplace adviser, 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 behavioral disclosure. It explains the validation step, the confirmation token mechanism, the need for the recipient to click an emailed link before providers see the enquiry, and the exact consent wording. This gives the agent a complete picture of the tool's behavior.

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 structured clearly with Step 1 and Step 2, front-loading the critical distinction that this is not a purchase. Every sentence contributes actionable guidance, and the repeated consent text is necessary because the agent must display it to the user.

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 having no output schema and no annotations, the description fully equips the agent to execute the two-step process correctly: what to send, what to show, when to resubmit, and what the recipient must do. Nothing essential for invoking the tool 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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying that answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields and by clarifying the role of the confirmation token across the two steps. This is a meaningful but modest addition.

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: submitting an enquiry to human providers, and immediately clarifies it is not a purchase or guaranteed quote. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like calculate and enquiry_describe by framing the two-step human-submission flow.

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?

The description gives explicit step-by-step usage: call first with answers and consent, show the summary, then call again only if the person agrees. It also references enquiry_fields for keying answers and includes explicit exclusions such as 'not a purchase' and 'not a guaranteed quote'.

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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct concern: running the calculator, describing the calculator, describing the enquiry process, listing enquiry fields, and submitting an enquiry. The two 'describe' tools are clearly separated by their object, and submit_enquiry has an explicit two-step protocol.

Naming Consistency2/5

Names are not consistently action-first: 'calculate' and 'submit_enquiry' are verb-led, while 'calculator_describe' and 'enquiry_describe' are noun-led, and 'enquiry_fields' is noun-noun. This mixed ordering makes the naming feel inconsistent even though each term is individually readable.

Tool Count5/5

Five tools is well-scoped for a focused calculator-plus-enquiry site: two tools cover the calculator and three cover the enquiry workflow. There is no bloat, and each tool has a clear job.

Completeness5/5

The surface covers the full user journey: understand the calculator, run it, understand the enquiry process, inspect required fields, and submit with consent and confirmation. There are no obvious dead ends or missing lifecycle steps for this domain.

Resources