Skip to main content
Glama

site

by uk.co.abnormalloadquotes

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Abnormal Load Quotes — 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 abnormal load and heavy haulage operators, who'll quote the move 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 abnormal load and heavy haulage operators, who'll quote the move 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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that the first call only validates and returns a summary and token, the second call actually submits, consent has a precise meaning, and nothing reaches providers until the email link is clicked.

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 long but every sentence earns its place by explaining a genuinely two-step interaction. The critical caveats, 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote', are front-loaded, and workflow details are ordered exactly as the agent must execute them.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description fully equips an agent to invoke the tool correctly across both steps. It covers inputs, intermediate output, the confirmation token, user consent, the email-link side effect, and the condition for the second call.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful workflow semantics: answers must be keyed by enquiry_fields field keys, consent is only true when the quoted sentence has been read and agreed to, and confirmation is the token received from step 1. This goes beyond the schema's bare definitions.

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 verb and resource: 'Submits an enquiry to Abnormal Load Quotes' and immediately disambiguates it from a purchase or guaranteed quote. It clearly defines a two-step submission workflow, which distinguishes this tool from the sibling tools that merely describe or fetch fields.

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 gives explicit step-by-step instructions: call first with answers and consent=true to get a token, show the person the summary, then call again only if the person agrees, including the token. It also states the prerequisite that the person must click an emailed link before providers see the enquiry.

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 has a separate role: one describes the process, one provides the field schema, and one performs the actual submission. The overlap in content between enquiry_describe and submit_enquiry is intentional and clearly signaled.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case and share the 'enquiry' domain, but the pattern is mixed: enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields are object-first, while submit_enquiry is verb-first. Still readable and predictable enough to navigate.

Tool Count5/5

Three tools is a well-scoped set for a single enquiry submission workflow: orientation, schema, and submission. Each tool earns its place without redundancy.

Completeness4/5

The core enquiry lifecycle is covered: explain, inspect fields, validate, confirm, and submit. Minor gaps exist around post-submission status tracking or cancelling, but these are not required for the stated purpose.

Resources