Skip to main content
Glama

site

by uk.co.compressedairservicing

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Compressed Air Servicing — 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 compressed air service engineers, 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 compressed air service engineers, 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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses the two-step validation workflow, the confirmation token requirement, the consent condition, the email link step, and that providers only see the enquiry after the person clicks. It also clarifies the consent statement wording.

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, and the critical 'not a purchase' clarification is front-loaded. The step-by-step structure makes a complex two-phase process easy to follow without excessive verbosity.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description explains expected returns: a summary, consent line, and confirmation token in step 1, and submission plus an emailed link in step 2. It also covers permissions, user consent, and the required confirmation token, leaving no critical gap for an agent to invoke the 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the parameters. The description adds meaningful workflow context: answers are keyed by field key, consent is only true when the person agrees to the exact consent line, and confirmation contains the step 1 token. This enriches the schema rather than repeating it.

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 Compressed Air Servicing') and immediately clarifies what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). This distinguishes it clearly from the sibling tools, which are descriptive rather than action-oriented.

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: first call with answers and consent=true to obtain a token, then call again only after the person agrees. It clearly states when not to proceed ('only if the person agrees'), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives among sibling tools.

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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Each tool has a distinct role: enquiry_describe explains the process, enquiry_fields provides the input schema, and submit_enquiry performs the submission. There is slight potential confusion between the two informational tools, but their descriptions clearly separate 'what happens' from 'what fields to use.'

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names use a consistent snake_case style, but the structure varies: enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields are noun-first, while submit_enquiry is verb-first. The names remain readable and predictable enough, though the ordering inconsistency is noticeable.

Tool Count5/5

Three tools is well-scoped for a narrow enquiry-submission workflow. Each tool earns its place: process explanation, field schema, and submission with confirmation handling. No redundant or unnecessary tools are present.

Completeness5/5

The set fully supports the intended workflow: an agent can learn about the process, retrieve the required fields, validate and submit an enquiry, and handle the two-step consent flow. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for this domain.

Resources