Skip to main content
Glama

site

by uk.co.drivershourscalculator

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

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Drivers' Hours Calculator — 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 a relevant transport compliance consultant, who'll get in touch with 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 a relevant transport compliance consultant, who'll get in touch with 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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the tool's behavior: it is a two-step operation, it validates and returns a summary and consent line, it requires user approval before step 2, and it triggers an email with a clickable link. This is far beyond what is typical and gives the agent complete understanding of side effects and user interaction.

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?

The description is relatively long but every sentence carries necessary information for a complex two-step tool. It is front-loaded with the key 'not a purchase' clarification and then logically structured into Step 1 and Step 2. No filler or repetitive content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description explains what the tool returns (summary, consent line, token) and the post-submission email flow. It does not cover error handling or edge cases, but for an agent needing to correctly invoke the tool, it is thorough.

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?

The schema already covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds critical context by explaining that answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, that consent must reflect the exact consent text, and that the confirmation token comes from step 1. This enriches the schema without redundancy.

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 the exact action (submit an enquiry) and the specific resource (Drivers' Hours Calculator), and explicitly disambiguates from a purchase or quote. It also clarifies the two-step process, making it distinct from sibling tools like enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields.

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 provides a detailed workflow for when to call the tool, including the two-step sequence and the requirement to obtain user consent. It implies usage context by referencing enquiry_fields for field keys, but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct role: running the calculator, describing the calculator, explaining the enquiry process, listing enquiry fields, and submitting an enquiry. There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between them.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are readable and mostly memorable, but they mix verb-first forms like calculate and submit_enquiry with noun-first forms like calculator_describe and enquiry_describe. The pattern is not fully consistent, though it is still understandable.

Tool Count5/5

Five tools is a lean but well-scoped set for the site's purpose: calculator execution, calculator documentation, enquiry explanation, enquiry schema, and enquiry submission. Each tool earns its place without redundancy.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full user journey for both calculator usage and the two-step enquiry submission, including field discovery and consent handling. No obvious gaps or dead ends are visible for the stated domain.

Resources