Skip to main content
Glama

site

by com.madvisorfees

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to M&A Advisor Fees — 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 corporate finance advisor, 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 corporate finance advisor, 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, the description carries the full burden and meets it: it reveals the two-step submission flow, the consent requirement with the exact consent text, the fact that a confirmation token is returned, and that an email link must be clicked before any provider sees the enquiry. This goes well beyond the schema to explain side effects and sequencing.

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 detailed but tightly structured into Step 1 and Step 2, with the key exclusion placed first. Every sentence adds necessary operational knowledge; the length is justified by the two-step complexity and no redundant filler is present.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description is complete: it explains what the first call returns, what the agent must show the user, what the second call requires, and what happens after submission (email and click-before-view). The single gap, exact response shape, is not necessary given the explicit procedural guidance.

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?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds crucial meaning: answers must be keyed from enquiry_fields, consent must be true only after the user agrees to the quoted line, and confirmation is the step-1 token that must be passed in step 2. The parameter roles and ordering are fully explained 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 M&A Advisor Fees') and immediately differentiates the tool by saying it is NOT a purchase or guaranteed quote. The two-step nature is front-loaded in both title and description, so an agent can distinguish it from calculators and describe 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 an explicit step-by-step usage protocol: call with answers and consent, show the summary, then call again with the confirmation token only after the person agrees. It also references enquiry_fields for keying answers, offering clear cross-sibling guidance, and states what the tool is not for (purchases/guaranteed quotes).

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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: calculate runs the fee calculator, calculator_describe explains the calculator, enquiry_describe explains the enquiry process, enquiry_fields lists form fields, and submit_enquiry submits the two-step enquiry. No overlap or ambiguity between them.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming is mixed: calculate is a bare verb, calculator_describe and enquiry_describe follow a noun_describe pattern, enquiry_fields is noun_noun, and submit_enquiry is verb_noun. The patterns are readable but not consistent, requiring a bit more effort to infer tool behavior from names.

Tool Count5/5

Five tools is well-scoped for a server that covers both a calculator and an enquiry flow. Each tool has a distinct role and the count feels neither thin nor bloated.

Completeness5/5

The server covers its full lifecycle: users can calculate fees, understand the calculator, learn about the enquiry process, get the required fields, and submit the enquiry with confirmation. There are no missing operations that would leave an agent stuck.

Resources