Skip to main content
Glama

site

by uk.co.binruleschecker

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Bin Rules Checker — 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 waste collection companies, 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 relevant waste collection companies, 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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does so thoroughly. It discloses the two-step nature, validation, consent requirement, email link behavior, that providers only see the enquiry after the link is clicked, and the exact consent wording.

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. It front-loads the critical 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote' message, then structures the two steps in a logical, readable sequence without 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully explains what step 1 returns, what step 2 requires, and what the user will experience after submission. It also covers the consent condition and the provider visibility condition, making the tool safe and unambiguous for an agent to invoke.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds valuable semantics beyond the schema: it explains that answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, that consent has a precise legal meaning, and that the confirmation token comes from step 1. This is clear, actionable parameter guidance.

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?

States a specific verb ('submits'), a resource ('Bin Rules Checker'), and the human enquiry context. It explicitly distinguishes itself from a purchase and a guaranteed quote, and points to enquiry_fields for the answer keys, making its purpose unmistakable relative to siblings.

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?

Provides explicit step-by-step usage conditions: step 1 validation, showing the summary, getting consent, step 2 confirmation token, and the requirement to only proceed after the person agrees. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or say 'use checker_* instead', so it falls just short of a 5.

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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

checker_start/answer/tree are distinguished by entry, traversal, and full-tree access, while enquiry_describe/fields/submit cover explanation, schema, and submission. There is slight conceptual overlap between checker_answer and checker_tree, but the descriptions clearly separate step-by-step navigation from end-to-end reasoning.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tools are grouped by two prefixes—checker_ and enquiry_—but there is no consistent verb_noun rule: checker_start and checker_answer are verbs while checker_tree is a noun, and enquiry_describe/enquiry_fields mix verb and noun with submit_enquiry reversing the prefix pattern. The names remain readable and groupable, so this is a moderate consistency issue.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is a well-scoped number for the site's purpose: three support the decision guide and three support the enquiry form/submission flow. No tool feels redundant or missing at the aggregate level.

Completeness5/5

The decision guide is fully covered with start, answer, and full-tree tools, and the enquiry flow has explanation, field-schema, and a two-step submit/confirm tool. There are no obvious dead ends for the advertised workflows.

Resources