Skip to main content
Glama

site

by com.micarequirements

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to MiCA Requirements — 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 crypto regulatory 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 crypto regulatory 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

A4.7/5.0
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. It thoroughly covers the two-step behavior, the exact consent text, the return of a summary/consent line/token, and the post-submission email link requirement before providers see the enquiry.

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 part earns its place: the non-purchase clarification, the step-by-step flow, the consent language, and the email-link condition. The Step 1/Step 2 structure makes a complex two-step interaction easy to follow.

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, the description explains the key return values and final outcome well. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly telling the agent to call enquiry_fields first and by covering validation-failure behavior, but overall it is functionally sufficient.

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 significant meaning: answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must match the exact consent statement, and confirmation is the token returned from step 1. This goes well beyond the bare parameter names in 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Submits an enquiry to MiCA Requirements.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from a purchase and a guaranteed quote, making the tool's scope unmistakable even before considering 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 clear, detailed usage context: call once for validation, show the summary and consent line, then call again with the confirmation token only if the person agrees. It does not name sibling tools as alternatives, but it provides enough step-by-step guidance to know when and how to invoke the tool.

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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct role: checker_start, checker_answer, and checker_tree map to different ways of interacting with the decision guide, while enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields, and submit_enquiry cover distinct aspects of the enquiry flow. There is no meaningful overlap that would cause an agent to select the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a clear pattern using 'checker_' and 'enquiry_' prefixes, with the second part indicating the action or resource. The one minor inconsistency is submit_enquiry, which inverts the verb_first ordering compared to enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields, but the overall scheme remains predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is well-scoped for the server's dual purpose of running a decision checklist and submitting an enquiry. Each tool earns its place, and the count is neither too thin nor bloated.

Completeness5/5

The checker workflow is complete with start, stepwise answer, and full tree access, while the enquiry workflow covers description, field metadata, and the two-step consent-based submission. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated domain.

Resources