Skip to main content
Glama

site

by com.scaffoldingcostcalculator

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Scaffolding Cost 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 local scaffolding firm, 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 local scaffolding firm, 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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: validation, two-step submission, the need for a confirmation token, the email link requirement before provider visibility, and the exact consent text. It also clarifies that the enquiry is not submitted until step 2, which is critical for safe execution.

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?

The description is moderately long but every sentence adds value, with the key caveat ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') front-loaded. It uses a clear step-by-step structure that mirrors the workflow, making it easy for an agent to follow without excess verbiage.

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?

The description is complete for a two-step submission tool: it explains the entire flow, the exact consent text, the return of summary and confirmation token in step 1, and the email-link requirement in step 2. It also references enquiry_fields for key construction, leaving no ambiguity about how to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, but the description adds crucial workflow context: answers must be keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields, consent must be true and has a specific meaning, and confirmation is the token from step 1 only used in step 2. This significantly enriches the parameter understanding beyond the bare schema definitions.

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 Scaffolding Cost Calculator' and explicitly distinguishes itself from a purchase and a guaranteed quote. It also differentiates from sibling tools like calculate and enquiry_describe by focusing on the submission workflow, 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 Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear procedural guidance: a two-step process, the requirement to use field keys from enquiry_fields, and the exact consent condition. It also implies when to use this tool (submission vs. calculation or description) by contrasting with purchase/quote, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools or list when not to use them.

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 purpose: calculate runs the calculator, calculator_describe explains its inputs/outputs, enquiry_describe explains the enquiry flow, enquiry_fields lists fields, and submit_enquiry handles submission. There is no ambiguity between them.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are mixed: 'calculate' is a bare verb, 'calculator_describe' and 'enquiry_describe' are noun-verb, 'enquiry_fields' is noun-noun, and 'submit_enquiry' is verb-noun. The style is inconsistent, making it harder to predict tool names.

Tool Count5/5

With only 5 tools, the set is well-scoped for a calculator with an enquiry submission flow. Each tool earns its place and the count is appropriate for the domain.

Completeness5/5

The surface covers the full lifecycle: calculating costs, understanding the calculator, understanding the enquiry process, getting the required fields, and submitting an enquiry with confirmation. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.

Resources