Skip to main content
Glama

site

by uk.co.confinedspacetrainingcost

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Confined Space Training 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 confined space training providers, 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 relevant confined space training providers, 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it excels: it discloses the two-step behavior, the consent requirement and exact consent text, the confirmation token, the email with a link, and that providers only see the enquiry after the link is clicked. It also clearly states the operation is not a purchase or guaranteed quote.

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. It front-loads the core purpose and exclusions, then structures the two steps clearly. The length is justified by the workflow complexity.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what step 2 achieves (submission, email, provider visibility). The workflow, consent handling, and field-key reference to enquiry_fields give an agent everything needed 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds process-level meaning beyond the schema: it explains how 'answers' are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, how 'consent' must be true, and the exact role of the 'confirmation' token across the two steps. This is more than schema repetition.

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 ('Confined Space Training Cost'), and explicitly distinguishes this from a purchase or guaranteed quote. It clearly positions the tool as the submission step, separate from the sibling describe/fields tools.

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: call once with answers and consent, show the summary, then call again with the confirmation token only if the person agrees. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the workflow context is clear and actionable.

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 serves a clearly distinct function: one describes the process, one provides field definitions, and one submits the enquiry. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.

Naming Consistency3/5

The names mix patterns: two use an 'enquiry_' prefix (enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields) while one uses a '_enquiry' suffix (submit_enquiry). All are lowercase with underscores, but the inconsistent verb/noun ordering prevents a fully predictable pattern.

Tool Count5/5

With only 3 tools, the server is tightly scoped to its single purpose of submitting an enquiry. Each tool is necessary and there is no bloat, making the count ideal for this narrow domain.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface fully covers the enquiry lifecycle: understanding the process, retrieving required fields, and submitting with a two-step confirmation. There are no obvious missing operations for the stated purpose.

Resources