Skip to main content
Glama

site

by com.noticeperiodaustralia

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Notice Period Australia — 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 employment lawyer or workplace 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 employment lawyer or workplace 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

A5/5.0
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 burden. It discloses the two-call stateful flow, the need to reuse the same answers and confirmation token, the exact consent text, and the email-click requirement before any provider sees the enquiry. This is far more transparent than the schema alone.

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 clause earns its place, with the most important disclaimers front-loaded ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). The Step 1/Step 2 structure makes a complex two-call flow easy to follow without unnecessary words.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description specifies the step-1 return values (summary, consent line, confirmation token), the step-2 outcome (submission plus email link), and the human-consent gate. The core invocation contract is complete enough for an agent to execute the tool 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 critical semantics: answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must be true and matches an exact statement, and confirmation is the token from step 1 reused only after approval. This clarifies the conditional role of the optional confirmation parameter.

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 action and target: 'Submits an enquiry to Notice Period Australia' and immediately contrasts it with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' The title and body make it easy to distinguish this submission tool from sibling tools like enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields.

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?

The two-step procedure tells the agent exactly when to call once, show the summary, then call again with the token 'only if the person agrees.' It also names enquiry_fields as the source for answer keys and explicitly says this is not a purchase or guaranteed quote, which helps prevent misuse.

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: calculate runs the calculator, calculator_describe explains it, enquiry_describe explains the enquiry flow, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the two-step submission. There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between any pair.

Naming Consistency3/5

The names are readable and consistently snake_case, but the pattern is mixed: calculate and submit_enquiry are verb-first, while calculator_describe, enquiry_describe, and enquiry_fields are noun-first. A consistent verb_noun pattern such as describe_calculator, describe_enquiry, and get_enquiry_fields would improve predictability.

Tool Count5/5

Five tools is a well-scoped set for a site with two distinct workflows: the notice calculator and the enquiry submission. Each tool earns its place, and the count is neither thin nor bloated.

Completeness5/5

The calculator workflow is complete with both execution and description, and the enquiry workflow covers overview, field schema, and the full two-step consent-based submission process. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated purpose.

Resources