Skip to main content
Glama

site

by uk.co.classiccarrestorationcost

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Classic Car Restoration 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 classic car restorers near me, who'll quote 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 classic car restorers near me, who'll quote 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, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the two-step nature, the validation and return of a summary/consent line/token, the email-link requirement, and that this is not a purchase or guaranteed quote. It also defines what consent means in exact terms, revealing side effects beyond a simple 'submit'.

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 front-loaded with the key caveat 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote', then lays out the two steps in a clear, logical order. Every sentence adds operational value—consent text, token flow, email link—without redundancy or filler.

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 submission with no output schema, the description fully covers the workflow: prerequisites (answers from enquiry_fields), the confirmation token handoff, the consent requirement, and the post-submission email-link behavior. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds significant meaning: answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent is tied to the exact consent line, and the confirmation token is explained as the output of Step 1 that must be resubmitted in Step 2. This goes well beyond the schema's property 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Submits an enquiry') and resource ('Classic Car Restoration Cost'), and clearly distinguishes the tool from a purchase or guaranteed quote. It also differentiates itself from the sibling tools by framing the two-step submission process, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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?

Usage is explicitly stepwise: Step 1 with answers and consent=true returns a summary and token; Step 2 is called only after person agrees, with the same answers, consent, and token. The condition for the second call is explicit, and the description notes that a person must click an emailed link before providers see the enquiry, giving clear when-to-use guidance.

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

A4.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct role: describe explains the overall flow, fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry performs the actual submission. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.

Naming Consistency4/5

Two tools share the enquiry_ prefix while the third uses submit_enquiry, creating a slight inconsistency in pattern. However, the names are still intuitive and readable, with submit_enquiry clearly signaling the action.

Tool Count5/5

Three tools is exactly the right scope for this narrow domain: understand the process, fetch the fields, and submit the enquiry. No tool feels unnecessary and none is missing for the stated purpose.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface fully covers the enquiry workflow, including the two-step confirmation requirement and consent handling. For a lead-generation enquiry form, there are no obvious dead ends or missing lifecycle operations.

Resources