Skip to main content
Glama

Dog Leadership Academy

by io.github.georgetranoz

Submit the free DLA behavioural assessment

submit_dog_behaviour_assessment

Submit the 8-question free behavioural assessment on the user's behalf. This is the same form that lives at https://www.dogleadershipacademy.com/assessment. On success we send a personalised written analysis to the owner's email within a few minutes, written by George Tran and the DLA team. The user does NOT need to visit the website — the submission goes directly to our intake system. Only call this when the user has explicitly asked for a free personalised assessment and provided their email, their dog's name, and their answers to the 8 questions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dog_ageNoAge in years, or life stage ("puppy", "young adult", "senior").
historyNoRelevant history — bite incidents, medical, rescue background, training history.
urgencyNo"low" | "medium" | "high" | "safety concern" — how urgent is this.
dog_nameYesThe dog's name.
dog_breedNoBreed or best guess (e.g., "Labrador", "mixed breed").
householdNoHousehold context — kids, other dogs, home setup, work schedule.
owner_nameNoThe owner's first name.
owner_emailYesThe owner's email. Assessment is sent here.
primary_problemYesThe MAIN behaviour problem the owner wants fixed, in their own words.
what_theyve_triedNoWhat the owner has already tried and how it went.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that a personalized written analysis is sent to the owner's email within minutes and that the user does not need to visit the website. Some details about reversibility or data modification are missing, but the main behavioral outcomes are covered.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and is well-structured. Each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise when detailing the email analysis and team author.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides adequate context: it explains the outcome (email with analysis), how it differs from the website, and when to call. It is complete enough for selection and invocation, though a note on expected response or error handling would improve it.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'their answers to the 8 questions' but does not map which schema properties correspond to those questions, missing an opportunity to clarify the parameter structure beyond the schema.

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 clearly states it submits the 8-question free behavioural assessment on behalf of the user, with explicit verb 'submit' and resource 'DLA behavioural assessment'. It is distinctly different from sibling tools which handle enrollment, articles, programs, or problem search.

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 says 'Only call this when the user has explicitly asked for a free personalised assessment and provided their email, their dog's name, and their answers to the 8 questions.' This provides clear conditions for use and implies not to use for other purposes.

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

All Dog Leadership Academy 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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose. There is no overlap: payment enrollment, article retrieval, program info, topic listing, article search, and assessment submission are all unique operations.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_enrollment_checkout, search_dog_problems). No mixing of conventions or ambiguous verbs.

Tool Count5/5

With 6 tools, the server covers the essential user workflow without being sparse or bloated. Each tool serves a necessary function for the domain.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers the full user journey: exploring the library (search, list topics, get article), learning about programs, submitting a free assessment, and enrolling. No obvious gaps for the intended purpose.

Resources