Skip to main content
Glama

site

by com.saudicompanysetupcost

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Saudi Company Setup Cost — 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 relevant Saudi company formation advisers, who'll quote 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 relevant Saudi company formation advisers, who'll quote 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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full weight, and it discloses critical behavioral traits: the two-step validation/submission flow, the requirement to show the summary and consent line, the email with a link the person must click before providers see the enquiry, and the exact consent wording. It also explicitly states this is not a purchase or guaranteed quote.

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 well-structured with explicit 'Step 1' and 'Step 2' sections, and every sentence carries essential operational information. The non-purchase warning is front-loaded, preventing a common misuse immediately.

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 exactly what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what the agent should do with those values. It also covers post-submission behavior (email link) and consent semantics, making the tool fully callable without additional information.

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 substantial meaning beyond the schema: which parameters to send in step 1, which additional parameter to include in step 2, that answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, and that consent must match the exact quoted text. This creates a full call protocol 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 ('submits an enquiry'), a specific resource (Saudi Company Setup Cost), and clearly differentiates the tool from a purchase or a guaranteed quote. It also names the process distinctly from sibling tools by describing the two-step submission flow.

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?

The description gives explicit step-by-step usage guidance: call with answers and consent first, show the summary, then call again with the confirmation token only after agreement. It references enquiry_fields for keying answers, which implicitly routes the agent to the correct sibling tool, though it does not explicitly state when not to use this 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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct role: one explains the process, one provides the field schema, and one handles submission. There is no overlap; an agent can clearly choose which tool to call based on the step in the workflow.

Naming Consistency4/5

All names use snake_case and are readable, but the pattern mixes noun-first (enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields) and verb-first (submit_enquiry). This minor inconsistency does not hinder understanding, but a fully uniform verb_noun pattern would be slightly better.

Tool Count5/5

Three tools is perfectly scoped for a focused enquiry submission flow. Each tool serves a necessary step—orientation, data schema, and submission—without redundancy or bloat.

Completeness5/5

The tools cover the entire enquiry lifecycle: understanding what the process is, getting the required fields, and performing the two-step submission with confirmation. There are no obvious gaps for the stated purpose.

Resources