Skip to main content
Glama

site

by com.mprpcalculator

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to MPRP 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 licensed 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 licensed 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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains the two-step mutation, validation and returned summary/token, the email link requirement before any provider can see the enquiry, and the exact consent wording.

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?

The definition is front-loaded with purpose and well organized into Step 1, Step 2, and Consent sections. It is dense but slightly long because the consent sentence repeats text already present in the schema, which is defensible for this consent-sensitive workflow.

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 complex two-step mutation with no output schema and no annotations, it covers consent, the confirmation token flow, email gating, and provider visibility. The main gap is that it does not describe what step 2 returns or how the agent should confirm successful submission to the user.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful lifecycle context: answers are keyed by enquiry_fields keys, and confirmation is the token produced in step 1 and required in step 2.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Submits an enquiry to MPRP Calculator') and immediately states what it is not: 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' This makes the tool's role distinct from the calculate/enquiry sibling tools without needing to inspect them.

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?

It provides an explicit two-step protocol: call with answers and consent=true first, then call again with the same answers, consent=true, and the confirmation token only if the person agrees. It also references enquiry_fields for answer keys and excludes purchase/quote use, though it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools.

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 purpose: calculate runs the calculator, calculator_describe explains the calculator, enquiry_describe explains the enquiry flow, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry submits. There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between them.

Naming Consistency3/5

The names are readable but follow mixed conventions: 'calculate' is a bare verb, while 'calculator_describe' and 'enquiry_describe' use noun_verb reversed, and 'enquiry_fields' is a noun phrase. The pattern is not chaotic, but it is inconsistent enough to be noticeable.

Tool Count5/5

Five tools is well-scoped for a calculator-plus-enquiry server. Each tool covers a necessary function without bloat or redundancy.

Completeness5/5

The toolset fully covers its stated domain: calculating costs, understanding the calculator, understanding the enquiry process, fetching the enquiry fields, and submitting an enquiry. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations.

Resources