Skip to main content
Glama

qasper

by io.github.QasperAI
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

send_inquiry

Destructive

Send a general inquiry to a local service business. Use this when the customer has a question, needs a custom quote, or wants to describe an issue that doesn't fit a specific bookable service. A stable clientRequestId deduplicates the same logical request, but does not guarantee immediate delivery through every configured channel. Relay the exact returned delivery outcome. ONLY call this if the business has 'inquiry' or 'email_inquiry' in its enabledFeatures array. Clients should obtain explicit user confirmation before sending an inquiry; Qasper does not enforce a separate confirmation credential.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugYesThe exact URL slug returned by a Qasper discovery result. Copy it verbatim.
messageYesDetailed description of the inquiry, question, or issue. Include any visual details about damage, location, severity, and urgency.
customerNameYesFull name of the person making the inquiry
customerEmailYesCustomer email address
customerPhoneYesCustomer phone number
clientRequestIdYesRequired stable UUID for this inquiry attempt. Generate once and reuse on retries of the same logical attempt.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / slug / description
      Previous value: -"The exact URL slug returned by search_businesses or get_business_info. Copy it verbatim."New value: +"The exact URL slug returned by a Qasper discovery result. Copy it verbatim."
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / clientRequestId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Required stable UUID for this inquiry attempt. Generate once and reuse on retries of the same logical attempt.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "slug",
-  "customerName",
-  "customerPhone",
-  "customerEmail",
-  "message"
-]New value: +[
+  "slug",
+  "customerName",
+  "customerPhone",
+  "customerEmail",
+  "message",
+  "clientRequestId"
+]
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / slug / description
      Previous value: -"The URL slug identifying the business"New value: +"The exact URL slug returned by search_businesses or get_business_info. Copy it verbatim."
  4. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses deduplication semantics via clientRequestId, non-guaranteed immediate delivery, the need to relay the exact delivery outcome, and the consent requirement for the user. These details meaningfully qualify side effects for a sending tool and do not contradict the destructiveHint annotation.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage triggers, dedup/delivery caveat, response handling, feature gate, and confirmation. The most important information is front-loaded, and there is no filler or irrelevant detail.

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 6-parameter send tool with no output schema, the description covers preconditions, user consent, feature eligibility, delivery caveats, and how to handle the returned outcome. An agent has enough operational guidance to invoke the tool correctly without additional investigation.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents slug provenance, clientRequestId reuse, and message detail expectations. The description adds workflow context but no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Send') and a clear resource ('general inquiry to a local service business'), and distinguishes this tool from services that fit a specific bookable offering. However, it does not explicitly contrast with ask_business_agent, which may also cover customer questions, so sibling differentiation is slightly incomplete.

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 concrete triggers for use: customer questions, custom quotes, and issues that do not fit a bookable service. It also provides a hard precondition ('ONLY call this if the business has inquiry or email_inquiry in its enabledFeatures array') and an explicit user-confirmation requirement, leaving little room for misuse.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All qasper 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