Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

site

by com.telescopecomparehq
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to TelescopeCompareHQ: 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 TelescopeCompareHQ emails you a recommendation 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 TelescopeCompareHQ emails you a recommendation 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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that the tool validates rather than sends on the first call, that the second call actually submits, that submission triggers a double opt-in email the person must click before any provider sees the enquiry, and that nothing beyond a recommendation email is shared. It even quotes the exact consent text the person must agree to.

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-loaded with the two negations and then explicitly labelled 'Step 1' / 'Step 2', which makes the protocol scannable. It is a dense single paragraph and the verbatim consent sentence is repeated at the end, but that repetition is functional since the agent must display the exact wording.

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 mutation-shaped, nested-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition supplies everything needed: what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, token), what to show the user, the precondition for step 2, and what happens after submission. No material gap remains 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 parameter meanings are largely documented already, but the description adds sequencing semantics the schema cannot: consent=true is required on both calls, answers must be reused unchanged in step 2, and confirmation is only supplied after the person approves the step-1 summary. It does not detail answer value formats, but the schema's additionalProperties covers that.

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 ('Submits an enquiry to TelescopeCompareHQ') and immediately scopes it with two negations: 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. That distinguishes it from anything transaction-shaped among the dataset_* siblings and from the read-only enquiry_fields/enquiry_describe pair.

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?

Gives an explicit two-call protocol: step 1 validates and returns a summary plus token, step 2 is conditional ('only if the person agrees') and requires the same answers plus the token. It also routes the agent to the sibling enquiry_fields for the field keys and specifies the human-approval gate before submission.

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