Skip to main content
Glama

site

by uk.co.coldroominstallationcost

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Cold Room Installation 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 relevant cold room installers, 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 relevant cold room installers, 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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It covers validation, return of a summary/consent line/confirmation token, second-step submission, email delivery, and the critical fact that providers only see the enquiry after the person clicks the emailed link.

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, with clear Step 1 and Step 2 structure. The critical caveat ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') is front-loaded, and the consent wording is included exactly as needed.

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-based submission tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it explains prerequisites, sequence, return values for step 1, user consent requirements, and post-submission behavior. No critical operational detail 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%, but the description adds substantial meaning: answers must be keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields, consent must be true with the exact consent line, and confirmation is the token from step 1 used only on the second call. This temporal and source-based context goes well beyond the schema.

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 clear verb and resource ('Submits an enquiry to Cold Room Installation Cost') and explicitly distinguishes itself from a purchase or guaranteed quote. It also differentiates the two-step submission process from sibling tools like enquiry_fields and enquiry_describe.

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 usage instructions: call first with answers and consent, then call again with the confirmation token only after the person agrees. It lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer sibling tools, but references enquiry_fields for keying answers, providing enough context for correct use.

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

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

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names are readable but follow mixed conventions: enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields put the noun first, while submit_enquiry uses a verb-first pattern. A consistent verb_noun style such as describe_enquiry, get_enquiry_fields, and submit_enquiry would improve predictability.

Tool Count5/5

Three tools is exactly right for this server's scope: one to explain the submission behavior, one to provide the required field schema, and one to perform the actual submission. Each tool earns its place.

Completeness5/5

The server covers the full enquiry lifecycle: understanding what happens, retrieving the required fields, and submitting with a two-step confirmation flow. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated purpose.

Resources