Skip to main content
Glama

mcp

by io.github.claracarspt

contact_me

Send a contact request to Clara Carros so a human gets in touch. Only call this when the user explicitly asks to be contacted, provides their own name and phone or email, AND agrees to share those details with Clara Carros — pass consent=true only then. Submitting shares the provided contact details per Clara Carros' privacy policy.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesThe person's name (as they gave it)
emailNoEmail (phone OR email required)
phoneNoPhone number (phone OR email required)
consentYesSet true ONLY if the user explicitly agreed to share their contact details and be contacted
messageNoWhat they want / their question

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the consent requirement, data sharing per privacy policy, and the requirement for user agreement. Could mention if the request is stored or triggers an email, but overall provides solid 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences: first states the action, second gives precise usage conditions. No wasted words, front-loaded, and highly efficient.

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 simple contact tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, usage conditions, parameter constraints, and policy mention. Nothing missing for an agent to use it correctly.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining conditions for consent (consent=true only if user agreed), that phone or email is required, and maps 'name' and 'message' to user input. This goes beyond schema 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Send a contact request'), the recipient ('Clara Carros'), and the purpose ('so a human gets in touch'). It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., search_inventory, calculate_isv) by being uniquely focused on user contact.

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?

Explicitly states when to call: only when the user explicitly asks to be contacted, provides their own name and contact info, and agrees to share. Also specifies the consent=true condition. This leaves no ambiguity for the agent.

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

All mcp 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

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a singular, well-defined purpose: tax calculators (ISV vs IUC), inventory operations (search vs get), contact mechanisms (general contact vs import quote), and listing utilities (makes/models vs services). No two tools overlap in function or intent, making misselection unlikely.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (calculate_*, list_*, get_*, search_*, request_*, contact_, estimate_), using lowercase snake_case throughout. The prefixing is logically aligned with the action type, and the naming style is uniform and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

With 9 tools, the server is well-scoped for its domain—covering tax estimation, vehicle search, resale valuation, import quoting, and contact flows. Each tool addresses a distinct user need without redundancy or bloat, fitting comfortably within the ideal 3-15 range.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the core workflows: estimating taxes, searching and viewing inventory, getting resale values, requesting import quotes, and contacting the company. Minor gaps exist, such as a dedicated tool for direct purchase or selling, but these are reasonably bridged by contact_me and estimate_resale_value offering follow-ups.

Resources