Skip to main content
Glama

site

by uk.co.clinicalwastequotes

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Clinical Waste Quotes — 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 registered clinical waste carriers, 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 registered clinical waste carriers, 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 present, the description carries the full burden and explains the side effects and gating behavior: validation on step 1, an email with a clickable link on step 2, and no provider visibility until the link is clicked. The exact consent statement is quoted, so the agent can confirm user consent correctly.

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 every sentence earns its place because the tool has a two-step flow and a consent requirement that cannot be compressed further. The key warnings are front-loaded at the beginning so an agent sees the non-purchase nature immediately.

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 multi-step submission tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete: it defines the preconditions, the exact consent text, the step-1 return values, the step-2 continuation condition, and the post-submission email requirement. No critical operational detail appears to be 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?

Although the schema already describes all three parameters, the description adds workflow semantics: answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must be true in both steps, and confirmation is the token returned in step 1 and required only for the second call. This mapping is materially more useful than the bare schema fields.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: submits an enquiry to Clinical Waste Quotes, and immediately excludes look-alike intent by saying it is NOT a purchase or guaranteed quote. It also references enquiry_fields as the source of answer keys, which orients the agent among sibling tools.

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?

The description gives an explicit two-step protocol: call once with answers and consent=true to get a summary and confirmation token, then call again only after the person agrees, using the same answers and the token. This tells the agent exactly when to make each call and what must happen between calls.

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 role: enquiry_describe explains the process, enquiry_fields provides the schema, and submit_enquiry handles the actual submission. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.

Naming Consistency4/5

Two tools use the 'enquiry_' prefix (enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields) while submit_enquiry reverses that order to 'verb_noun'. This is a minor inconsistency but all names are still readable and clearly related to the same domain.

Tool Count5/5

Three tools are exactly right for this narrow enquiry-submission workflow: describe, fields, submit. There is no redundancy or missing essential step for the stated purpose.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers the full lifecycle of an enquiry: understanding what it does, getting the required fields, and submitting with a two-step consent confirmation. There are no obvious gaps within the domain.

Resources