Skip to main content
Glama

site

by uk.co.carimportcalculator
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Car Import Calculator — 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: "Send my contact details to up to three relevant vehicle import agents, chosen by Car Import Calculator, who'll contact me directly. I'll be emailed each firm's name as my details go to it, and can stop any more firms getting them."

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
answersYesthe person's answers, keyed by field key
consentYestrue only when the person has agreed to: Send my contact details to up to three relevant vehicle import agents, chosen by Car Import Calculator, who'll contact me directly. I'll be emailed each firm's name as my details go to it, and can stop any more firms getting them.
confirmationNothe confirmation token from step 1, after the person has approved the summary

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / consent / description
      Previous value: -"true only when the person has agreed to: Happy for my details to go to a relevant vehicle import agent, who'll contact me directly."New value: +"true only when the person has agreed to: Send my contact details to up to three relevant vehicle import agents, chosen by Car Import Calculator, who'll contact me directly. I'll be emailed each firm's name as my details go to it, and can stop any more firms getting them."
  2. 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 discharges it: it states that step 1 validates and returns a summary, a consent line and a token; that step 2 actually submits; and that the person must click an email link before any provider sees the data. It also discloses the downstream data flow (up to three agents, notified per firm, can stop further sharing).

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?

Front-loads the crucial 'not a purchase' scoping before the procedural detail, and the step 1/step 2 framing is easy to follow. However, the full legal consent sentence is quoted nearly verbatim a second time (it already appears in the schema's consent field), which is redundancy that inflates the length.

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 two-step consent-gated mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return semantics (summary, consent line, token), the second-call requirement, and the post-submission email verification. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is absent.

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 relational meaning the schema can't: 'answers' are keyed by field key from the enquiry_fields sibling, and 'confirmation' is sequenced to step 1's output. This cross-tool wiring is genuinely useful beyond the field-level 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Submits an enquiry to Car Import Calculator') and immediately disambiguates it from the siblings with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. An agent can distinguish it from calculate/enquiry_fields without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit two-step protocol: Step 1 with answers + consent=true to validate and get a token; Step 2 only after the person agrees, re-sending the same answers with consent=true and the token. The conditional gate ('only if the person agrees') is precisely the when-to-use guidance an agent needs.

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
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources