Skip to main content
Glama

site

by com.texassolarcostcalculator

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Texas Solar Cost Calculator — 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 a licensed Texas solar installer, 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 a licensed Texas solar installer, 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 provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses validation, what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, token), that step 2 actually submits, that the person gets an email with a click link, and that providers only see the enquiry after that click. It even quotes the exact consent statement.

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 longer than average but every sentence earns its place: the caveat is front-loaded, then step 1 and step 2 are clearly delineated, and the consent text is given verbatim. The structure mirrors the call sequence, which makes it easy for an agent to follow.

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 two-step submission tool with no output schema, this description is remarkably complete. It explains both calls, what to show the user between steps, the required confirmation token, the email click-through, and the consent condition. No practical detail needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 meaningful usage semantics beyond the schema: answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, the confirmation token comes from step 1, and consent must match the exact quoted consent line. This adds practical value over the raw property 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?

Description states the exact verb ('Submits an enquiry') and target resource (Texas Solar Cost Calculator), and immediately clarifies what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like calculate, enquiry_describe, and enquiry_fields.

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?

Provides a precise two-step calling protocol with explicit conditions: call first with answers and consent=true, then call again only if the person agrees, including the confirmation token. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the step conditions and consent gate are clear enough for correct invocation.

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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: calculate runs the calculator, calculator_describe explains it, enquiry_describe explains the enquiry flow, enquiry_fields provides field definitions, and submit_enquiry performs the submission. No overlap or ambiguity.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming is somewhat mixed: verb-noun (submit_enquiry), single verb (calculate), noun-verb (calculator_describe, enquiry_describe), and noun-noun (enquiry_fields). While the two describe tools follow a consistent pattern, the others diverge, making the overall convention inconsistent but still readable.

Tool Count5/5

5 tools is well-scoped for the server's purpose—covering calculation, description, and enquiry submission. Each tool is essential and there is no bloat or missing core functionality.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface fully covers the domain: calculator execution, calculator metadata, enquiry description, field enumeration, and a two-step submission process with consent confirmation. No obvious gaps or dead ends.

Resources