Skip to main content
Glama

site

by uk.co.classqchecker

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Class Q Checker — 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 planning consultant or rural architect, 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 planning consultant or rural architect, 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It thoroughly covers side effects: validation, summary/consent/token return, email receipt, and the emailed-link requirement before any provider sees the enquiry. It also quotes the exact consent text.

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 longer than average, but each part earns its place: disclaimers, ordered steps, consent semantics, and token role. The Step 1/Step 2 structure and front-loaded 'NOT a purchase' make it easy to parse for an agent.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the necessary return values (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and post-conditions (email, provider visibility only after link click). The two-step contract gives an agent everything needed to invoke this tool correctly.

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?

The schema already covers 100% of parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real semantic value by explaining answers are keyed by enquiry_fields field keys, that confirmation is the step-1 token used for the final submission, and that consent requires the quoted agreement 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 states a specific action ('Submits an enquiry to Class Q Checker') and immediately clarifies what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It also distinguishes the two-step submission flow, making the tool's role clear against the related checker and enquiry siblings.

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 (Step 1 with answers/consent, Step 2 only after the person agrees and with the token) and an explicit when-not ('NOT a purchase'). It does not name a competing sibling tool to prefer in other cases, so it falls just short of full alternative routing.

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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

The checker tools are separated by interactive progression (start/answer) versus full-tree reasoning, and the enquiry tools cleanly separate documentation, schema, and submission. The only mild overlap is that checker_tree also contains all questions and verdicts, so an agent could use it to bypass the step-by-step tools.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case and grouped by domain prefix (checker_*, enquiry_*), but word order and parts of speech are mixed: checker_start and checker_answer are imperative, checker_tree and enquiry_fields are nouns, enquiry_describe is object-verb, and submit_enquiry is verb-object. This is readable but not a consistent pattern.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools are well-scoped for the two workflows: three for the eligibility decision guide and three for the enquiry submission process. No tool feels redundant or missing at the count level.

Completeness5/5

The decision guide has start, step-through, and full-tree coverage, while the enquiry flow has a describe-first explanation, field schema, and a two-step submission with confirmation token. There are no obvious dead ends for the stated purpose.

Resources