Skip to main content
Glama

site

by nz.co.employeecostcalculator

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Employee Cost Calculator NZ — 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 New Zealand accountant or payroll provider, 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 New Zealand accountant or payroll provider, 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

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains validation, the intermediate summary and token, the final submission, the email with a click link, and that providers only see the enquiry after that click. It also discloses the non-purchase/non-quote nature, which is important 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?

The description is longer than average, but every sentence earns its place given the two-step flow and lack of annotations or output schema. Key warnings are front-loaded, and the step-by-step structure makes the required sequence easy to follow without wasted words.

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 is remarkably complete. It covers the preconditions, the exact consent text, the required intermediate artifact, the final side effect (email), and the condition under which a provider sees the enquiry. An agent has enough context to invoke both steps correctly.

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?

Even with 100% schema coverage, the description adds critical meaning: answers must be keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields, consent must exactly match the quoted agreement, and confirmation is the token returned from Step 1. It also explains the conditional need for confirmation, which the schema alone does not convey.

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 states a specific action ('Submits an enquiry') against a named resource (Employee Cost Calculator NZ) and immediately clarifies what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). The two-step nature is explicit, distinguishing this from straightforward calculation or description tools.

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?

The description provides explicit step-by-step invocation guidance: Step 1 uses answers and consent=true, Step 2 is conditional on the person agreeing and requires the confirmation token. It clearly tells the agent when to proceed and when not to, and references enquiry_fields for the correct answer keys.

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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct concern: running the calculator, explaining the calculator, explaining the enquiry workflow, listing enquiry fields, and submitting the enquiry. The only potentially adjacent pair is enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields, but their descriptions draw a clear line between process and schema.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are readable and grouped by function, but they mix conventions: calculate and submit_enquiry are verb-first, while calculator_describe and enquiry_describe are noun-first, and enquiry_fields is a noun phrase. No single pattern is sustained across the set.

Tool Count5/5

Five tools is an appropriate size for a focused site with two features: a calculator and an enquiry flow. Each tool has a clear role, and there are no redundant or filler tools.

Completeness5/5

The calculator surface is complete with run and describe tools, and the enquiry surface covers workflow, schema, and two-step submission. The two-step confirmation is handled inside submit_enquiry, so there are no missing lifecycle steps.

Resources