Skip to main content
Glama

site

by uk.co.cryptoaccountantsdirectory

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Crypto Accountants Directory — 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 accountants who handle cryptoasset tax, 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 accountants who handle cryptoasset tax, 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

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses validation, the returned summary/consent line/token, the email with a click link, that providers see the enquiry only after the person clicks, and the exact consent 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 well organized with Step 1 and Step 2, front-loads the core action and exclusions, and every sentence contributes essential procedural, consent, or outcome information.

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 and no annotations, the description fully covers the call sequence, required inputs, returned artifacts, email behavior, and approval gate, leaving no significant 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.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description still adds meaningful semantics: answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent is tied to the exact quoted agreement, and confirmation is the step-1 token used only after the person approves the summary.

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 Crypto Accountants Directory'. It also explicitly clarifies what the tool is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') and the two-step flow distinguishes it from enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields, and the comparison siblings.

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?

Provides explicit step-by-step guidance: call first with answers and consent=true to get a confirmation token, then call again with the token only if the person agrees. It also states the exclusion (not a purchase/quote) and the requirement that consent must match the quoted agreement.

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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool maps to a clearly distinct output: criteria, options, full table, enquiry explanation, enquiry fields, and submission. Even the three compare tools are unlikely to be confused because their descriptions specify different levels of detail.

Naming Consistency3/5

The compare_* tools follow a consistent verb-noun pattern, but the enquiry tools mix conventions: enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields use an enquiry_ prefix while submit_enquiry leads with the verb. This makes the naming pattern less predictable, though still readable.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is a well-scoped count for this server's two clear purposes: showing a comparison and submitting an enquiry. Each tool has a distinct role and none feels redundant.

Completeness5/5

The comparison side covers criteria, options, and the full table, while the enquiry side covers explanation, fields, and a two-step submission flow with consent confirmation. No obvious missing operation is needed for the stated site workflow.

Resources