Skip to main content
Glama

site

by com.maltaworkpermitchecker

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Malta Work Permit Checker — 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 Malta immigration 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 Malta immigration 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

A4.8/5.0
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 does so thoroughly: it discloses the two-step submission flow, validation and summary return, the role of the confirmation token, the email-link requirement before providers see anything, and the exact consent wording. No annotation contradiction exists.

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 every sentence earns its place: primary action and caveats are front-loaded, then Step 1 and Step 2 are clearly separated. It avoids filler while covering all necessary workflow details.

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 remarkably complete: it explains what Step 1 returns, what must be shown to the user, what the token is for, and what happens after Step 2. An agent has enough information to execute the full two-step flow correctly.

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 schema coverage is 100%, the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: answers must be keyed by enquiry_fields, consent has a precise contractual meaning, and the confirmation token is only relevant for the second call. This resolves how the optional confirmation parameter should be used.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Submits an enquiry') and immediately clarifies that this is NOT a purchase or a guaranteed quote. It further distinguishes the two-step nature of the operation and ties answers to enquiry_fields keys, making the tool's role unmistakable relative to its siblings.

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 procedural guidance: call first with answers and consent=true, show the summary and consent line, then call again with the same answers and the confirmation token only if the person agrees. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when to prefer them, but the step sequence and consent condition are clearly defined.

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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

The tools are cleanly split into two domains: the checker decision guide (start, answer, tree) and the enquiry submission flow (describe, fields, submit). Each tool has a distinct role with no overlapping responsibilities, so an agent can easily select the right one.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most names follow a noun_prefix pattern (checker_*, enquiry_*) but the verb placement varies: checker_start and checker_answer are noun-verb, while enquiry_describe is noun-verb and submit_enquiry is verb-noun. Slight inconsistency but still readable and predictable within each group.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is an appropriate scope for a focused site: three for the interactive guide and three for the enquiry workflow. No redundancy and no missing obvious operations, each tool earns its place.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface fully covers the stated purpose: the checker guide can be traversed (start, answer, tree) and the enquiry flow is complete (describe, fields, submit). There are no dead ends or missing lifecycle steps for either workflow.

Resources