Skip to main content
Glama

site

by uk.co.businessvaluationcost

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Business Valuation Cost — 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 valuation firms and accountants, who'll contact me directly about the fee."

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 valuation firms and accountants, who'll contact me directly about the fee.
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

A4.7/5.0
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 that this is not a purchase, that a validation summary and confirmation token are returned, that an email with a click-link is sent, and that providers only see the enquiry after the link is clicked. It also states the exact consent wording required.

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 every sentence earns its place: it front-loads the non-purchase disclaimer, then clearly separates step 1 and step 2, and embeds the consent quote. The structure makes the stateful two-call flow easy to follow for an agent.

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 stateful two-step submission tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers prerequisites, the exact two calls, consent requirements, the confirmation token, and the post-submission email activation step, leaving no critical ambiguity.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful lifecycle context beyond the schema. It explains that answers must use field keys from enquiry_fields, that consent must be true only after the person agrees, and that confirmation is the token returned in step 1 and used only in step 2.

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 action (submits an enquiry), a target resource (Business Valuation Cost), and explicitly distinguishes it from a purchase or a guaranteed quote. The title reinforces the two-step nature, and the action is clearly different from the sibling describe/field tools.

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 provides a clear two-step invocation protocol: first call with answers and consent=true, then call again only after the person agrees, including the confirmation token. It does not explicitly contrast against sibling tools, but the workflow guidance is specific enough to prevent misuse.

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

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct role: one explains the overall process, one provides the field schema, and one performs the actual submission. There is no meaningful overlap between them.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case and share the 'enquiry' theme, but the pattern is mixed: 'enquiry_describe' and 'enquiry_fields' are noun-led while 'submit_enquiry' is verb-led. The names are readable but not consistently structured.

Tool Count5/5

Three tools is a well-scoped size for a single enquiry workflow: process overview, field schema, and submission. Each tool earns its place with no redundancy or bloat.

Completeness5/5

The set covers the full lifecycle of the enquiry process: understanding what happens, obtaining the required fields, and submitting with consent and confirmation. There are no obvious missing operations for the stated purpose.

Resources