Skip to main content
Glama

site

by com.sellablescore

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Sellable Score — 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 exit 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 exit 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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does so thoroughly. It discloses validation behavior, the returned confirmation token, the email-with-link requirement, and the condition that providers only see the enquiry after the person clicks the link.

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 long but every sentence earns its place: it front-loads the critical exclusions, then gives a clear step-by-step protocol, and finishes with the exact consent wording. No redundant 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?

For a two-step tool with no output schema and nested parameters, the description is remarkably complete. It explains step-1 return values (summary, consent line, confirmation token), step-2 execution, and the email-link prerequisite—everything needed to call 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?

The schema already covers parameters well (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful operational context beyond the schema by explaining that answers must key off enquiry_fields and by clarifying exactly when each parameter, especially confirmation, is used across the two steps.

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 identifies a specific action ('Submits an enquiry'), a target resource ('Sellable Score'), and clarifies what it is NOT ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It also references enquiry_fields, helping distinguish this from related tools.

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 two-step calling sequence is explicitly described with exact conditions: call first with answers+consent, show the summary and consent line, then call again only if the person agrees. The description also states when not to use the tool, i.e., it is not for purchase or quote requests.

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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

The six tools split cleanly into two workflows: the Exit readiness checker (start, answer, tree) and the Sellable Score enquiry (describe, fields, submit). Even the closest pair, enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields, are clearly separated by purpose: one explains the workflow, the other defines the input schema.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tools consistently use snake_case and meaningful domain prefixes: checker_* and enquiry_*. However, there is no uniform verb_noun pattern: checker_start, checker_tree and enquiry_fields are noun-like, while submit_enquiry is verb-first and checker_answer is ambiguous between noun and command.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is well-scoped for a server covering two distinct features: a decision guide and an enquiry form. Each tool has a clear role and none feel redundant or unnecessary.

Completeness5/5

The checker workflow is fully covered: start, navigate with answers, and access the full decision tree. The enquiry workflow is also complete: describe the process, provide fields, and submit in a two-step confirmation flow with consent and token handling.

Resources