Skip to main content
Glama

site

by com.metalroofcostcalculator

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Metal Roof Cost 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 local metal roofing contractor, 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 local metal roofing contractor, 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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses the two-step flow, that no purchase/quote is guaranteed, that consent text must be shown, that an email with a link is sent, and that providers only see the enquiry after the link is clicked. This is unusually complete behavioral disclosure.

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 front-loads the core purpose and disambiguation before a clearly separated Step 1/Step 2 breakdown. All included details—consent line, email link, token—are necessary for correct invocation, and nothing extraneous remains.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

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 or annotations, the description covers preconditions, step outputs, and post-conditions (email, provider visibility after click). Minor gaps remain around failure modes and what step 2 returns, but the agent has enough to execute the flow 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 already describes each parameter with 100% coverage, and the description adds key meaning: answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must literally be true with quoted consent text, and confirmation is the token returned in step 1. This enriches the schema without being redundant.

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?

States the exact verb 'Submits an enquiry', names the resource 'Metal Roof Cost Calculator', and immediately disambiguates from purchase/quote. The two-step process and consent requirement make the tool's role unmistakable even among 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?

Provides a precise two-step workflow (first call with answers+consent, second call with confirmation token after approval) that tells an agent exactly when and how to invoke it. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools such as calculate or enquiry_fields, though the procedural guidance makes the intended context clear.

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 serves a distinct purpose: calculate runs the calculator, calculator_describe explains it, enquiry_describe explains the enquiry flow, enquiry_fields lists inputs, and submit_enquiry performs the submission. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names mix styles: calculate and submit_enquiry use verb_noun, while calculator_describe and enquiry_describe use noun_verb, and enquiry_fields is noun_noun. The pattern is inconsistent and does not follow a single predictable convention, though the names are still descriptive.

Tool Count5/5

With 5 tools covering two clear functions (calculator and enquiry), the count is well-scoped. Each tool earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary bloat.

Completeness5/5

The surface fully covers the domain: calculation with execution and description, and enquiry with explanation, field listing, and a two-step submission flow. There are no missing operations or dead ends for the stated purpose.

Resources