Skip to main content
Glama

site

by com.skitransferquotes

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Ski Transfer Quotes — 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 Alpine transfer operators, who'll contact me directly with prices."

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 Alpine transfer operators, who'll contact me directly with prices.
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 available, the description fully carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the two-step nature, consent requirements, the exact consent text, and the fact that an email link must be clicked before any provider sees the enquiry, which is critical non-obvious behavior.

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: the key warning is front-loaded, followed by clearly numbered steps and the exact consent text. Every sentence contributes essential information, with no filler or repetition.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description explains what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and the downstream email behavior. For a three-parameter, two-step tool with non-obvious consent and confirmation requirements, this is complete and sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, so the parameters themselves are already documented. The description adds valuable workflow semantics beyond the schema, such as requiring the same answers in step 2 and explaining that the confirmation token comes from step 1 and is only used after the person approves the summary.

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 resource: 'Submits an enquiry to Ski Transfer Quotes.' It is immediately differentiated from a purchase or a guaranteed quote, and the two-step human-provider workflow is explicit, so an agent can tell this tool apart from read-only siblings like enquiry_fields and enquiry_describe.

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 gives a concrete step-by-step usage path: first validate and obtain a confirmation token, then resubmit only after the person agrees. It also states what the tool is not for ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') and references enquiry_fields for the answer keys, which clearly orients the agent.

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

A4.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

enquiry_describe explains the process, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the submission. There is no semantic overlap between these three concerns.

Naming Consistency3/5

Two tools share an 'enquiry_' prefix, but submit_enquiry breaks the pattern by leading with the verb. The names are readable and consistent in snake_case, but the convention is mixed rather than uniform.

Tool Count5/5

Three tools is exactly right for an enquiry-submission flow: one for explanation, one for schema, one for submission. Every tool has a distinct role and no tool feels redundant.

Completeness5/5

The set covers the full lifecycle needed: orienting the user, discovering fields, and submitting with consent and confirmation. There are no obvious dead ends, since submit_enquiry handles both validation and final confirmation.

Resources