Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

site

by com.medspacostchecker
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Med Spa Cost 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: "By sending this you agree the Med Spa Cost Checker team reads your enquiry and replies by email. We do not pass it to anyone else."

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "answers": "<answers>",
      "consent": "<consent>"
    },
    "name": "submit_enquiry"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
answersYesthe person's answers, keyed by field key
consentYestrue only when the person has agreed to: By sending this you agree the Med Spa Cost Checker team reads your enquiry and replies by email. We do not pass it to anyone else.
confirmationNothe confirmation token from step 1, after the person has approved the summary

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / consent / description
      Previous value: -"true only when the person has agreed to: By submitting you agree Med Spa Cost Checker shares your details with med spas and aesthetic clinics who may contact you about your enquiry."New value: +"true only when the person has agreed to: By sending this you agree the Med Spa Cost Checker team reads your enquiry and replies by email. We do not pass it to anyone else."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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 well: it discloses that step 1 only validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that step 2 triggers a confirmation email, and that no provider sees the enquiry until the link is clicked. It does not cover failure behavior (invalid field keys, consent=false, expired token) or whether repeat submissions are deduplicated, which are the remaining behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is front-loaded with the purpose and disclaimers before the procedural detail, and every sentence serves the two-step flow. The consent sentence is quoted verbatim and is also duplicated in the schema's consent description, which is mild redundancy but justified by the consent requirement.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns, and it does: step 1 yields a summary, consent line and confirmation token; step 2 triggers an email with a verification link. For a two-step, nested-object tool this covers everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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, but the description adds genuine sequencing meaning: answers are keyed by field key drawn from enquiry_fields, and the confirmation token comes specifically from step 1 and is only used after the person approves the summary. That context on when confirmation applies is not evident from the schema alone.

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 to Med Spa Cost Checker") and immediately disambiguates scope with "NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote," which separates it from any transactional interpretation. The two-step structure is then spelled out, so an agent knows exactly what calling it accomplishes.

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?

It gives explicit sequencing rules: Step 1 with answers and consent=true, show the person the summary and consent line, then Step 2 only if the person agrees. The condition that gates the second call is stated unambiguously, leaving nothing to inference.

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
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources