Skip to main content
Glama

site

by uk.co.adrcourses

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to ADR Courses — 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 approved ADR training centres, who'll quote 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 approved ADR training centres, who'll quote 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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the validation step, required consent text, confirmation token flow, email delivery, and the link-click requirement before providers see the enquiry. This is far more transparent than typical tool descriptions.

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 long but almost every clause carries operational necessity. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and the 'not a purchase' warning. Minor structural improvements could be made, but it is not bloated or redundant.

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?

The tool involves a complex two-step workflow with consent and email confirmation, and the description covers all critical aspects: what to show the person, when to call again, what token to pass, and what happens after submission. There is no output schema, so the description's explanation of return values is especially valuable.

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. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining that answers are keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields, that consent must be exactly true with the quoted consent line, and how confirmation ties into the two-step flow. It stops short of listing possible field keys, but that is delegated appropriately.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Submits an enquiry to ADR Courses'. It also explicitly distinguishes this from a purchase and from a guaranteed quote, making the tool's role unambiguous even without comparing to sibling names.

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 an explicit two-step calling protocol: step 1 for validation and token retrieval, step 2 only after the person agrees. It also includes when-not guidance ('NOT a purchase') and references enquiry_fields for obtaining valid answer keys, which helps the agent choose the right path.

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

enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields, and submit_enquiry address clearly distinct concerns: process explanation, field schema, and validated submission. There is no meaningful overlap that would cause an agent to select the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields share an object-first 'enquiry_*' pattern, but submit_enquiry inverts this to verb-first. The mixed convention is still readable, but not fully predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Three tools map neatly to the enquiry workflow: understand the process, get the field schema, and submit with confirmation. Each tool earns its place and the scope is tightly focused.

Completeness5/5

The workflow is complete for the domain: an agent can discover the process, obtain the form schema, validate a submission, and confirm with a token. No additional lifecycle operations are needed for this single-submission flow.

Resources