Skip to main content
Glama

site

by com.strrulescheck

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to STR Rules Check — 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 local property advisers and rental managers, 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 local property advisers and rental managers, 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

A4.7/5.0
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 does so thoroughly: it discloses the two-step nature, that step 1 does not submit and only validates, that step 2 requires the token, that an email link must be clicked before providers see the enquiry, and the exact consent wording. This gives the agent a strong mental model of side effects and sequencing.

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 most important caveat ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') and then organized into clear Step 1 and Step 2 instructions. Every sentence carries necessary operational or consent information, with no 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 complex two-step, consent-gated submission with no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It explains what each call returns, when to make the second call, what the consent string is, and the post-submission email-link behavior, so an agent has the full calling contract.

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; the description adds extra value by explaining that answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, that consent must match the quoted text, and that confirmation is the token returned from the first step. This sequencing context goes beyond the schema's isolated parameter descriptions.

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 clearly states this tool submits an enquiry to STR Rules Check and explicitly disambiguates it as 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' It also frames the action as a two-step human-provider submission, making its purpose distinct from the sibling lookup tools like enquiry_fields and checker_answer.

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 workflow is spelled out explicitly: first call with answers and consent=true, then a second call with the confirmation token only if the person agrees. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use this tool, but the step conditions and consent requirement provide clear usage context.

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

Each tool has a clearly distinct role: checker_start initializes the guide, checker_answer progresses through it, and checker_tree provides the full end-to-end map. Similarly, enquiry_describe explains the process, enquiry_fields supplies the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the submission. No two tools are easily confused.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names are grouped by domain prefixes (checker_ and enquiry_), but the suffixes mix verbs and nouns (start, answer, tree, describe, fields) and submit_enquiry breaks the prefix pattern. This is readable and predictable but lacks a single consistent verb_noun convention.

Tool Count5/5

With six tools, the set is well within the ideal range and appropriately sized for two connected functions: a decision guide and an enquiry submission flow. Each tool covers one necessary step without redundancy or bloat.

Completeness5/5

The checker tools cover the full interaction lifecycle: starting the guide, answering step-by-step, and viewing the entire tree. The enquiry tools cover explanation, field specification, and the two-step submission process, so there are no obvious gaps for the stated domain.

Resources