Skip to main content
Glama

site

by com.uaecorporatetaxcalculator

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to UAE Corporate Tax 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 relevant UAE corporate tax adviser, 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 relevant UAE corporate tax adviser, 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?

No annotations exist, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that step 1 only validates and returns a token, step 2 actually submits, and an email link must be clicked before any provider sees the enquiry. It also clarifies the exact consent meaning, which is essential behavioral context.

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?

The description is dense but mostly well-organized, front-loading purpose and non-purchase disclaimer before the two-step procedure. The repeated consent line in both description and schema is slightly redundant, but the overall structure is efficient for the tool's complexity.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description fully covers prerequisites, flow, expected intermediate result (summary, consent line, token), final outcome (email with click link), and constraints. No critical caller information is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant meaning: answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent is defined with the exact consent line, and confirmation is explained as the step-1 token. This goes well beyond the bare schema property names.

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 a specific action ('Submits an enquiry to UAE Corporate Tax Calculator') and explicitly disambiguates from purchase/quote expectations. The two-step submission flow and tie-in to enquiry_fields make its role distinct from sibling tools like calculate or enquiry_describe.

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 description provides clear step-by-step guidance: call with answers and consent, show the summary, then call again with the confirmation token only if the person agrees. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools, but the steps effectively communicate when and how to invoke this tool.

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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct role: calculate runs the tax computation, calculator_describe documents the calculator, enquiry_describe explains the enquiry process, enquiry_fields defines the input schema, and submit_enquiry handles submission. There is no meaningful overlap between any two tools.

Naming Consistency3/5

The naming is readable and grouped by domain, but conventions are mixed: calculate is a plain verb, calculator_describe and enquiry_describe use noun_verb order, enquiry_fields is noun_noun, and submit_enquiry is verb_noun. A consistent verb_noun or describe_* pattern would make the set more predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Five tools is an appropriate size for a focused calculator-plus-enquiry server. Each tool covers a distinct piece of the workflow and none feel redundant or decorative.

Completeness4/5

The calculator side is complete with calculate and calculator_describe, and the enquiry side has field introspection, process disclosure, and two-step submission. The only minor gap is the lack of any post-submission status or history tool, but the flow is designed around email confirmation so this is not a critical omission.

Resources