Skip to main content
Glama

site

by com.sredfinder

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to SR&ED Finder — 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 SR&ED claim preparers, 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 SR&ED claim preparers, 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, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers: it discloses validation on step 1, the confirmation-token gating on step 2, the side effect of sending an email, and the click-before-any-provider-sees-it condition. It also defines consent with the exact user-facing text.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and exclusions, then flows linearly through the two steps. This is multi-sentence, but every sentence carries necessary procedural or consent information for a non-obvious two-call tool.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description names the key return artifacts (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and tells the agent what to show and when. It also covers prerequisites through the enquiry_fields reference and downstream behavior (email link) sufficiently for a 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?

The schema already covers all parameters at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful operational semantics by specifying that step 1 uses answers and consent without the confirmation token, while step 2 must reuse the same answers plus the token; however, the schema itself already supplies the consent text and token provenance.

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 SR&ED Finder' and immediately disambiguates it from a purchase or quote. The two-step submission flow and the reference to enquiry_fields make it clear that this is the submission action rather than the describe/compare/field-listing sibling 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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: call once with answers and consent to validate, show the person the summary and consent line, then call again only if the person agrees. It also states hard exclusions ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') and links to enquiry_fields for key construction.

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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: the three compare tools focus on criteria, options, and the full comparison table respectively, while the three enquiry tools cover description, fields, and submission. There is no ambiguity between them.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (compare_criteria, submit_enquiry), but the enquiry_* tools use a noun_verb pattern (enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields), which is a minor deviation from an otherwise consistent style.

Tool Count5/5

With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of comparing SR&ED claim preparation options and submitting enquiries. Each tool earns its place without redundancy or bloat.

Completeness5/5

The tool set provides complete coverage for the domain: comparison is fully covered with criteria, options, and a full table, and the enquiry workflow is complete with description, field definitions, and a two-step submission process. No obvious gaps exist.

Resources