Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

site

by com.procedurecostchecker
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Submit an ENQUIRY to Procedure Cost Checker (two steps; not a purchase)

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Procedure 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 the Procedure Cost Checker team sees it. Consent means the person has read and agreed to: "By sending this you agree the Procedure 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 Procedure 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 Procedure Cost Checker shares your enquiry with providers who may reply with a written price."New value: +"true only when the person has agreed to: By sending this you agree the Procedure Cost Checker team reads your enquiry and replies by email. We do not pass it to anyone else."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses validation behavior, what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, token), what the caller must show the person, and that submission triggers an email the person must click before the team sees it. It also states the exact consent text, which is a genuine behavioral prerequisite rather than a restatement.

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?

Front-loaded with the disambiguation (not a purchase, not a quote), then sequenced step by step, which suits a two-call protocol. The consent sentence appears verbatim twice in the description and a third time in the schema, which is mild redundancy in an otherwise dense passage.

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?

For a stateful two-invocation tool with a nested answers object and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: required inputs per step, gating condition, return summary, and post-submission email verification. Nothing material is missing.

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; the description earns above that by explaining that answers are keyed by field key drawn from enquiry_fields and by pinning the confirmation token to step 1 after approval. The consent sentence is repeated from the schema, which slightly dilutes the added value.

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 a specific verb and resource ("Submits an enquiry to Procedure Cost Checker") and immediately rules out the wrong mental models: "NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote." The two-step structure is spelled out, and it is clearly distinguishable from siblings like enquiry_fields (which supplies the keys) and enquiry_describe.

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?

Explicitly narrates the when-and-how: step 1 with answers plus consent=true, then step 2 "only if the person agrees" with the same answers plus the confirmation token. The gate condition and the ordering are unambiguous, so an agent knows not to call step 2 prematurely.

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