Skip to main content
Glama

site

by uk.co.asbestossurveyquotes

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Asbestos Survey 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 relevant local asbestos professionals, 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 relevant local asbestos professionals, 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

A4.6/5.0
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 two-step statefulness, validation and summary/confirmation-token return, consent wording, and the post-submission email-link requirement before any provider sees the enquiry. This is thorough and non-obvious behavior.

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 clause earns its place: purpose, exclusions, two-step flow, return values, consent language, and email verification. It is structured with clear Step 1/Step 2 signposts and front-loads the most important caveats.

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?

For a stateful two-step tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is largely complete: it covers call order, consent, confirmation token, and the email-link gate. It falls slightly short on failure-mode behavior (what happens if validation fails or if consent is refused), but the core invocation is fully specified.

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?

The input schema already documents all three parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds procedural meaning beyond the schema: the confirmation token must come from Step 1 and must be reused with the same answers, and consent must reflect the exact stated agreement. This is useful extra semantics, though somewhat redundant with schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Submits an enquiry to Asbestos Survey Quotes.' It immediately clarifies what the tool is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'), which sharply distinguishes it from a purchase flow and from the sibling tools named enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit step-by-step call sequencing (Step 1, then Step 2) and states the condition for Step 2 ('only if the person agrees'). It also excludes purchases, but it does not explicitly compare against enquiry_describe or enquiry_fields, though the reference to 'field key from enquiry_fields' hints at where to get parameter 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 has a clearly distinct purpose: one explains the enquiry process, one provides the field schema, and one submits the enquiry. There is no meaningful overlap or risk of selecting the wrong tool for a step.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case and share the 'enquiry' domain, but the pattern is mixed: 'enquiry_describe' and 'enquiry_fields' are noun-first while 'submit_enquiry' is verb-first. It remains readable, but not as consistent as a uniform verb_noun convention.

Tool Count5/5

Three tools are exactly right for this narrow enquiry submission workflow: describe the process, describe the fields, and submit. Each tool earns its place with no redundant or unnecessary surface.

Completeness5/5

For the stated purpose of submitting asbestos survey quote enquiries, the tool set covers the entire lifecycle: understanding the process, retrieving the schema, and performing the two-step submission. No obvious gap or dead end remains.

Resources