Skip to main content
Glama

site

by com.madeinmexicosuppliers

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Made in Mexico Suppliers — 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 manufacturers and sourcing intermediaries, 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 manufacturers and sourcing intermediaries, 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

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, and it does so thoroughly. It reveals that the first call only validates and does not submit, that the second call submits, that the person must click an emailed link before providers see anything, and it defines consent with the exact wording.

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 efficient, using numbered steps to convey the two-phase flow without wasted words. The consent quote and email-link caveat are necessary legal and behavioral details, not 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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and execute it correctly. It covers purpose, boundary conditions, the two-step invocation sequence, the meaning of consent, the confirmation token, and the downstream dependency on an email click.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although the schema already describes the parameters, the description adds crucial operational meaning: answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent requires the exact quoted consent line, and confirmation is the step-1 token used to complete submission after approval. This goes well beyond the schema's minimal property 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 verb ('submits an enquiry'), the resource ('Made in Mexico Suppliers'), and immediately disambiguates the tool from a purchase or guaranteed quote. The two-step flow is also front-loaded in the title and first sentence, so an agent can clearly distinguish this from the sibling enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields tools.

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 provides a precise call protocol: step 1 with answers and consent=true to validate and obtain a token, then step 2 only after the person agrees and with the same answers plus the token. It also states when not to use it ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') and references enquiry_fields for the correct answer keys.

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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: the compare_* tools separate criteria, option metadata, and the full comparison table, while the enquiry_* tools separate process explanation, field schema, and submission. No two tools appear to do the same thing.

Naming Consistency3/5

The comparison tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (compare_*), but the enquiry tools mix conventions: enquiry_describe is noun_verb, enquiry_fields is noun_noun, and submit_enquiry is verb_noun. The names are readable but not uniformly patterned.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is well-scoped for this server's apparent purpose: three tools cover the comparison surface and three cover the enquiry workflow. Each tool earns its place without redundancy.

Completeness5/5

The comparison tools cover criteria, options, and the full table, providing a complete browsing experience. The enquiry tools cover describe, fields, and two-step submission, leaving no obvious dead end for the intended workflow.

Resources