Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

site

by com.strengthstandardscalc
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Strength Standards Calc: 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: "By submitting you agree Strength Standards Calc emails you the result and shares nothing else with anyone."

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "answers": "<answers>",
      "consent": "<consent>"
    },
    "name": "submit_enquiry"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
answersYesthe person's answers, keyed by field key
consentYestrue only when the person has agreed to: By submitting you agree Strength Standards Calc emails you the result and shares nothing else with anyone.
confirmationNothe confirmation token from step 1, after the person has approved the summary

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses the two-phase confirmation flow, that step 1 only validates, that submission triggers a double opt-in email, and that no provider sees the enquiry until the link is clicked. It does not cover failure handling on validation errors, retry/idempotency, or withdrawal, which leaves real gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Front-loads the critical framing ('NOT a purchase') and then numbers the two steps, which maps cleanly onto the agent's decision sequence. It is on the long side, and the consent sentence is duplicated from the schema's `consent` description, though quoting it verbatim is defensible since the person must see it.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what step 2 produces (email with a verification link). For a nested-object, multi-step submission tool this is nearly sufficient; only error and duplicate-submission behavior are undocumented.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds genuinely new meaning: `answers` is keyed by field keys sourced from enquiry_fields, `consent` must be true and corresponds to a specific verbatim notice, and `confirmation` is bound to the step-1 token and only sent after approval. That sequencing is behavioral knowledge the schema cannot 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?

States a specific verb and resource (submit an enquiry to Strength Standards Calc) and immediately disambiguates intent with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' This distinguishes it from sibling read-only tools like enquiry_fields and enquiry_describe, which supply field definitions rather than submission.

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 two-step procedure is spelled out with an explicit gate: step 2 runs 'only if the person agrees.' It also points to enquiry_fields as the source of field keys. It stops short of stating when not to use the tool (e.g., when the person has not consented) beyond the consent gate, and names no alternative route.

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
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources