Skip to main content
Glama

site

by uk.co.ciwregistration

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to CIW Registration — 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 a relevant social care registration consultant, 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 a relevant social care registration consultant, 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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses the two-step confirmation flow, the consent text, the email-link requirement before provider visibility, and the non-guarantee nature of the enquiry. This goes well 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, step 1, step 2, consent definition, and email caveat are all necessary for correct invocation. The 'NOT a purchase' qualifier is front-loaded and the step structure makes it scannable.

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 three-parameter tool with a nested answers object and no output schema, the description provides the missing context: expected return of step 1, required confirmation token in step 2, consent semantics, and the downstream email activation. Nothing essential for calling the tool correctly is omitted.

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 explaining how the confirmation token is obtained in step 1 and reused in step 2, and by clarifying that answers are keyed by enquiry_fields. It strengthens understanding of the confirmation parameter beyond its schema description.

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 verb and resource: submits an enquiry to CIW Registration, and explicitly disambiguates it from a purchase or guaranteed quote. The two-step workflow is announced up front, making the tool's role distinct from the sibling 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 operational ordering (step 1 validation then step 2 submission) and tells the agent to proceed only if the person agrees. It does not explicitly route between this tool and its sibling tools, but the 'NOT a purchase' exclusion and step conditions make the use case clear.

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 clearly distinct purpose: enquiry_describe explains the process, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the submission. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.

Naming Consistency4/5

The names are readable and mostly follow a pattern, but they are not perfectly consistent: enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields use the object-first style, while submit_enquiry uses verb-first. Still, the pattern is predictable and unlikely to confuse an agent.

Tool Count5/5

Three tools is well-scoped for this server's narrow purpose of submitting a CIW Registration enquiry. Each tool has a necessary and distinct role with no redundancy.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers the full enquiry lifecycle: understanding the process, retrieving the required fields, and submitting with the two-step confirmation flow. No obvious gaps exist for the stated domain.

Resources