Skip to main content
Glama

site

by com.retirementvisacalculator

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Retirement Visa 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 relevant 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 relevant 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

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, summary/consent display, the confirmation token mechanism, email delivery, the click-before-provider-sees requirement, and the exact consent wording. This gives the agent a realistic model of side effects and prerequisites.

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 detailed but every sentence carries necessary information. The non-purchase disclaimer is front-loaded, and the two-step process is presented in clear numbered order without repetition or filler.

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?

Given the two-step interaction, nested answers object, and absence of an output schema or annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It tells the agent exactly what to return to the user, when to proceed, and what the user must do afterward.

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 meaningful context beyond the schema: answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent requires the exact stated agreement, and confirmation is the token returned from step 1. This clarifies the temporal relationship between parameters that the schema alone does not convey.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Submits an enquiry to Retirement Visa Calculator.' It immediately clarifies what the tool is NOT ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'), distinguishing it from likely sibling tools such as calculate and making its purpose unmistakable.

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 description provides an explicit two-step invocation flow: step 1 with answers and consent=true to get a confirmation token, then step 2 with the same answers plus the token only after the person agrees. It also states when not to use it ('NOT a purchase') and names the required precondition (person has read and agreed to the consent line).

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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tool purposes are mostly distinct: calculate runs the calculator, calculator_describe explains it, and the three enquiry tools split process description, field schema, and submission. The only mild ambiguity is between enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields, as both are descriptive, though their descriptions clearly separate behavior from schema.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names mix conventions: calculate and submit_enquiry are verb-first, while calculator_describe and enquiry_describe are noun-first, and enquiry_fields is a noun phrase. The names remain readable and snake_case is consistent, but the pattern is not uniform.

Tool Count5/5

Five tools is well-scoped for this site: two for the calculator and three for the enquiry flow. Each tool covers a distinct step without redundancy.

Completeness5/5

The calculator journey is fully supported with describe and calculate, and the enquiry journey is fully supported with process description, field schema, and a two-step consent-based submit. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the intended use.

Resources