Skip to main content
Glama

site

by uk.co.cqcregistrationchecker
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to CQC Registration 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: "Send my contact details to up to three relevant CQC registration consultants, chosen by CQC Registration Checker, who'll contact me directly. I'll be emailed each firm's name as my details go to it, and can stop any more firms getting them."

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
answersYesthe person's answers, keyed by field key
consentYestrue only when the person has agreed to: Send my contact details to up to three relevant CQC registration consultants, chosen by CQC Registration Checker, who'll contact me directly. I'll be emailed each firm's name as my details go to it, and can stop any more firms getting them.
confirmationNothe confirmation token from step 1, after the person has approved the summary

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / consent / description
      Previous value: -"true only when the person has agreed to: Happy for my details to go to a relevant CQC registration consultant, who'll contact me directly."New value: +"true only when the person has agreed to: Send my contact details to up to three relevant CQC registration consultants, chosen by CQC Registration Checker, who'll contact me directly. I'll be emailed each firm's name as my details go to it, and can stop any more firms getting them."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it discloses validation behavior, the returned summary/consent line/confirmation token, the double opt-in email link requirement, that providers only see details after the click, and the exact consent semantics. It also clarifies this is not a purchase or guaranteed quote, which is critical downstream-behavior context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the most decision-relevant fact (not a purchase), then proceeds step-by-step with zero filler. It is long, but the length is driven by the mandated consent text and the genuinely needed two-step mechanics, so almost every sentence earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly explains the step-1 return payload and the step-2 outcome. For a nested-object, multi-step, human-consent-gated tool with no annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs to call it 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 baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine relational meaning: 'answers' keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, 'consent' must be true and means the quoted consent text, and 'confirmation' is the token returned in step 1. It explains how the parameters interact across the two calls, not just what they are.

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?

States a specific verb (submits) and resource (enquiry to CQC Registration Checker) and immediately disambiguates with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. An agent can distinguish this from sibling tools like checker_answer or enquiry_fields without reading any schema.

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?

Explicitly lays out when to call step 1 vs step 2, the gating condition ('only if the person agrees'), and what must be shown to the person between steps. It also points to the sibling tool enquiry_fields as the source of field keys.

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
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources