Skip to main content
Glama

site

by com.redundancycalculatorireland

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Redundancy Calculator Ireland — 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 solicitor or tax 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 solicitor or tax 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 and does so thoroughly: it discloses validation, returned summary, consent line, confirmation token, the required second confirmation call, and the email verification step before provider visibility. No annotation contradiction exists.

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 sentence earns its place, front-loading the critical caveat that this is not a purchase or guaranteed quote and explicitly labeling Step 1 and Step 2. It is long only because the two-step workflow itself requires those details.

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 multi-step tool with no output schema, the description supplies all necessary operational context: how to start, what step 1 returns, when to proceed, what step 2 requires, and the downstream email behavior. The reference to enquiry_fields also resolves where parameter keys come from.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description enriches the parameters: it explains answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, repeats the exact consent wording, and specifies that confirmation is the token from step 1. This adds workflow meaning beyond the bare 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 object (Submits an enquiry to Redundancy Calculator Ireland) and immediately distinguishes the tool from a purchase or guaranteed quote. The title's two-step phrasing reinforces the differentiation, so an agent can separate it from the calculation and description siblings.

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?

It provides an explicit two-step protocol: first call with answers and consent=true to get a summary and token, then call again with the token only after the person agrees. It also states the condition for consent and what happens after submission (email link required before providers see it), leaving no ambiguity about when 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct role: running the calculator, describing the calculator, explaining the enquiry process, providing the enquiry field schema, and submitting the enquiry. There is no meaningful overlap between tools.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are readable and consistently snake_case, but the verb/noun pattern is mixed: calculate and submit_enquiry are verb-first, while calculator_describe and enquiry_describe are noun-first, and enquiry_fields is noun-noun. This is not chaotic, but it lacks a single predictable convention.

Tool Count5/5

Five tools is well-scoped for a focused statutory redundancy calculator with an enquiry submission workflow. Each tool covers a distinct part of the user journey without redundancy or bloat.

Completeness5/5

The set covers the full lifecycle: computing a redundancy payment, understanding the calculator, understanding the enquiry process, retrieving the exact form fields, and submitting with consent. There are no obvious missing operations that would strand an agent.

Resources