Skip to main content
Glama

site

by uk.co.cataractsurgerycost

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Cataract Surgery 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 private eye clinics and hospitals, 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 private eye clinics and hospitals, 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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so thoroughly: it reveals the two-call sequence, validation/summary/token returns, consent requirement, email link, and that providers only see the enquiry after the person clicks the link. This is rich behavioral context beyond the schema.

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?

The description is longer than average, but it is front-loaded with the key discriminator ('NOT a purchase') and structured into Step 1/Step 2. Every clause adds necessary operational detail; the main redundancy is restating the consent quote already present in the schema, preventing a perfect score.

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 complex two-step mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is complete: it specifies required inputs for each call, what step 1 returns, the consent gate, and the final email/click side effect. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly in both steps.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying that answers are keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields, explaining the confirmation token's temporal role between step 1 and step 2, and clarifying that consent means agreement to the exact quoted text.

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 names a specific action ('Submits an enquiry to Cataract Surgery Cost') and immediately disambiguates it with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' It also lays out the two-step nature, which separates it from the sibling helper tools 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 when-to-call guidance: step 1 with consent=true, then step 2 only if the person agrees and with the confirmation token. It includes a when-not (not a purchase/quote), though it doesn't name alternatives such as enquiry_describe, so it stops just short of a full 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

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields, and submit_enquiry each occupy a clearly distinct role: narrative overview, field schema, and actual submission. There is no meaningful overlap between any pair, though describe and fields both support the same submission flow.

Naming Consistency4/5

The first two tools share an enquiry_ prefix and clearly group metadata/introspection, while submit_enquiry is the action verb. This is mostly consistent and readable, but the object-first vs verb-first ordering is a minor deviation from a single verb_noun pattern.

Tool Count5/5

Three tools is well-scoped for a single-purpose enquiry submission server: each tool maps to a necessary stage (understand, get fields, submit). No tool feels redundant and the count is not too thin.

Completeness5/5

For the stated purpose of submitting a Cataract Surgery Cost enquiry, the set fully covers onboarding description, required field metadata, validation/consent, and two-step submission with confirmation token. No essential operation is missing; the flow cannot get stuck within this server's responsibility.

Resources