Skip to main content
Glama

site

by org.thewaterhub

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to The Water Hub — 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 The Water Hub shares your details with relevant water treatment companies who may contact you."

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
answersYesthe person's answers, keyed by field key
consentYestrue only when the person has agreed to: By submitting you agree The Water Hub shares your details with relevant water treatment companies who may contact you.
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?

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses validation behavior, required consent, the returned summary/token, the email link that must be clicked before any provider sees the enquiry, and the exact consent wording. This is far more transparent than a typical submit action.

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 dense but organized chronologically into Step 1 and Step 2, front-loaded with caveats. The verbatim consent text is included, and every sentence contributes to correct invocation without fluff or redundancy.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description fully covers the required sequence, what to show the user, what the confirmation token is for, and the final email-link delivery requirement. No critical detail an agent needs to call the tool correctly is missing.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaning the schema lacks: answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent is not just a boolean but agreement to a specific quoted statement, and confirmation must be the token from the prior step. This materially changes how parameters are populated.

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 states 'Submits an enquiry to The Water Hub' with a clear verb and resource, and explicitly contrasts with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. This makes the tool's purpose distinct from the sibling enquiry_* tools and from commercial ordering concepts.

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?

Provides an explicit two-step invocation flow: Step 1 validates and returns a summary/token, Step 2 is used 'only if the person agrees' and includes the confirmation token. It also references enquiry_fields for answer keys, giving implicit guidance on the companion tool to use, and clarifies when-not (not a purchase).

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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct operation on the dataset or enquiry. dataset_search, dataset_row, dataset_compare, and dataset_top have clear differences in matching logic and output. Enquiry tools are clearly separate. No two tools appear to do the same thing.

Naming Consistency4/5

All dataset tools follow a dataset_* pattern, and enquiry tools follow enquiry_* except submit_enquiry which inverts the order. This is a minor deviation but the overall naming is predictable and clear.

Tool Count5/5

10 tools is well-scoped for the domain, covering both data querying and enquiry submission without bloat.

Completeness4/5

The dataset query surface covers schema, metadata, row lookup, search, stats, and top/bottom. Enquiry covers description, fields, and submission. Minor gaps like a 'list all rows' or enquiry status check exist but are not critical.

Resources