Skip to main content
Glama

site

by uk.co.caravanstorageprices

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Caravan Storage Prices — 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 caravan and motorhome storage sites near me, 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 caravan and motorhome storage sites near me, 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

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and meets it: it reveals the two-step deferral, that the first call does not submit, that the person receives an email and must click a link before any provider sees the enquiry, and the exact consent condition.

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 clause is necessary for a two-step workflow with a legal consent condition. It is front-loaded with the core action and exclusions, then clearly organizes Step 1 and Step 2.

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 tool with nested answers, a confirmation token, and no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent must do in each call, what to show the person, and what happens after submission. The only external reference it needs—enquiry_fields—is named and is also a sibling tool.

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?

Even though the schema already describes all three parameters, the description adds workflow meaning: answers must be keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields, consent=true is the literal agreement to the quoted line, and confirmation is the token returned in step 1 that must accompany the second call.

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 action ('Submits an enquiry to Caravan Storage Prices') and immediately distinguishes the tool from related concepts: 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' The title's 'two steps; not a purchase' plus the body make it clear this is the submission tool and not enquiry_describe/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 Guidelines5/5

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

The workflow is explicit: Step 1 validates and returns a summary/confirmation token, and Step 2 is permitted only 'if the person agrees' with the same answers and token. It also states when not to use it (not a purchase or guaranteed quote) and points to enquiry_fields as the source of answer 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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a separate role: one explains the overall purpose, one describes the input schema, and one submits the enquiry. There is no meaningful overlap between them.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case and clearly domain-related, but the pattern is mixed: 'enquiry_describe' and 'enquiry_fields' are noun-first, while 'submit_enquiry' is verb-noun. This is readable but not a fully consistent convention.

Tool Count5/5

Three tools is well-scoped for a single enquiry-submission flow: orientation, schema discovery, and submission. Each tool earns its place.

Completeness5/5

The surface covers the full lifecycle of what is advertised: reading about the process, retrieving all editable fields, validating, and submitting with explicit consent. No obvious dead-end or missing operation exists.

Resources