Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

site

by com.vpncomparehq
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to VPNCompareHQ: 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 VPNCompareHQ 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 VPNCompareHQ 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 supplied, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that step 1 validates and returns a summary, consent line and token; that step 2 actually submits; and that the person must click an emailed link before any provider sees the enquiry. The consent semantics and the exact data-sharing commitment are also quoted, which is the key side-effect an agent must communicate.

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 structure is excellent, with the 'NOT a purchase' caveat front-loaded and the two steps clearly numbered. It is on the long side and quotes the consent sentence twice (once as description, once effectively as the schema text), which is slight redundancy, though arguably justified since the agent must display that 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 genuinely complex tool — nested answers object, two-call state machine, human consent, double opt-in email — the description covers the full lifecycle and every required input's role. With no output schema and no annotations, everything an agent needs to call both steps correctly is present in the text.

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 real meaning: it ties 'confirmation' to a token obtained from step 1 and requires the same 'answers' object across both calls, which the schema alone does not convey. Minor gap: it does not explain what a validation failure on the answers looks like or which field keys are permitted beyond pointing at enquiry_fields.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Submits an enquiry to VPNCompareHQ') and immediately bounds it with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote', which prevents the most likely misinterpretation. It also distinguishes this tool from the adjacent enquiry_fields/enquiry_describe helpers by explaining that answers are 'keyed by field key from enquiry_fields', so an agent can place it in the sibling set without ambiguity.

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?

It gives an explicit ordered protocol: step 1 to validate and preview, step 2 only 'if the person agrees', with the required parameters for each call spelled out. Prerequisites (consent=true, prior human approval of the summary and consent line) and the prohibition on treating step 1 as a submission are stated outright, leaving nothing to inference.

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